While this New York Times article is mainly about U.S-Saudi relations being strained by, among other things, Saudi Arabia’s decision to send troops into Bahrain, it fails to mention that the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy is docked in Manama, Bahrain. And the Fifth Fleet is kind of important. It protects Iraqi ports, conducts anti-mining operations, patrols the Persian Gulf (including the Straits of Hormuz) and the Red Sea, and conducts anti-pirate missions off the coast of Somalia. It can also support flight missions in Iraq.
The population of Bahrain is heavily Shi’a but they’ve lived under a Sunni monarchy (or emirate) for 200 years. It appears that the people are tired of it. The way it is shaking out is that both the Saudis and the Iranians see what is going on in Bahrain as essentially a battle between themselves. That may not be how the Bahraini protesters see things, but Saudi Arabia’s decision to send in troops speaks for itself. Meanwhile:
…The entrance of foreign forces, including Saudi troops and those from other Persian Gulf countries, threatened to escalate a local political conflict into a regional showdown; on Tuesday, Tehran , which has long claimed that Bahrain is historically a part of Iran, branded the move “unacceptable.”
…“The presence of foreign forces and interference in Bahrain’s internal affairs is unacceptable and will further complicate the issue,” Ramin Mehmanparast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman told a news conference in Tehran, according to state-run media.
It would be nice to support democracy everywhere, all the time, with no exceptions, and to never have to do business with monarchs or dictators. However, our previous decisions have created certain needs and obligations. The Saudis are pissed off at Obama for abandoning Hosni Mubarak and they’re not about to let us abandon King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa. We’d be wise to look the other way on this one, while obviously calling for restraint and the protection of peaceful protesters.
Obama has a lot on his plate right now. Too much, in my estimation. I have been arguing as persuasively as I can for him not to add Libya to our responsibilities. Egypt, Iraq, and the home of our Fifth Fleet are providing enough drama at the moment. Dealing with Iran, trying to manage the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the poor health of both the Saudi king and his crown prince (and a possible succession fight)…
Then there’s the situation in Yemen.
And now Japan. And the budget. And Republicans trying to shut the government down.
We can’t do everything. We must try to keep things as simple as possible at a time like this.
And just for perspective, if, say, McCain had won the election and then had a fatal stroke or something…how do you think Palin would be handling these challenges? Hell, what if McCain didn’t die? How screwed would we all be then?
She would have quit and Boehner would be sobbing on the front steps as he was sworn in.
And he’d be on his 2nd 18 of the day right about now.
You are never the good guys.
Supporting democracy human rights and freedom if and only if it’s to your advantage does not make you the good guys.
(No, Europe is never the good guys either.)
I disagree. I think our country deserves tremendous credit for helping to build the infrastructure we all have for avoiding and resolving conflict and providing humanitarian assistance. You don’t make your arguments stronger by denying the USA’s or Europe’s positive achievements.
Avoiding and resolving conflict? Interesting take on reality given the number of wars, large and small, the United States has started or facilitated, just since WW II. The list is pretty staggering.
Funnily enough, polls have shown that the majority in most countries polled consider the United States to be the greatest threat to world peace and security. I think the facts support that view very strongly.
Who, in your estimation, are the good guys?
Did I say there were good guys?
As long as everyone runs international politics on the basis of dishonest internal politics there are no good guys. Just everyone pretending to be the good guys.
Yep. But not all politics internal or external is dishonest. There is a very huge gray area of a lot of actors trying to do the right thing without sacrificing their own interests. Sometimes it is easier than other times. Some places it is easier than in other places. And it never extends everywhere or lasts without vigilance.
There are no good guys. But in terms of those who present through media and other such channels themsleves as the white hat cowboys they have death tolls on their hands far higher in most of not all cases than those presented as wearing the black hats. An inconvenient truth
“Supporting democracy human rights and freedom if and only if it’s to your advantage does not make you the good guys.“
Neither does destroying entire countries supposedly in an effort to “promote democracy in the region”. Iraq, anyone?
The lesson of the Vietnam war defeat (oh some dont even recognize it was a disastrous defeat!) was that you had to destroy the village to save it was too little, so they adapted the policy in the pentagon to avoid ever losing another war to you have to destroy the country to save it.
Funny thing is that anyone who understands anything about war and military matters knows that to win a war you have to achieve your goals. Guess the US always intended installing a government in Iraq that was far more considerate and sympathetic to Iran than any western nation was the aim then considering apart from destroying Iraq the NY Times and all the other propaganda agencies havent called it defeat.
Whats next: to save the country you have to exterminate everyone who doesnt agree with you? Oddly enough that doesnt sound too far off what many republicans (should we actually term them facists or neo-nazis?) are throwong around in terms of rhetoric about their own fellow americans who suddenly beome un american if….., so what chance does a foreigner have?
Empire does as empire does. Always the same whatever the name, and it aint for the advantage of anyone outside the empire
International politics has never been about morality for any country, even when it is framed in those terms. It has been a reflection of domestic politics. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia want to divert attention from growing opposition movements domestically and have a foreign enemy to justify cracking down on dissidents.
The best move for the US, given US domestic politics, is to send the Fifth Fleet not in use on a naval maneuver somewhere, docking in friendly ports. And subtly hint to the King of Bahrain that there are other countries that could be ports for the Fifth Fleet. And make contingency plans to move to one of these ports, suitably leaking the information that contingency plans are in the works. It gets us out of having to “defend American lives” if Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or Iran miscalculate.
That would be the fundamental problem.
Yes it is the fundamental problem. Just like the fact that politics is about power as much as it is about decisions.
One of the geniuses of the American system, one that is currently being undermined, is its emphasis on checks and balances. One of the things you notice about periods of relative peace is that the peace is based on a balance of power.
And one of the things you notice about “morality” is that beyond some common human survival insights it is very much shaped by cultural/political/economic power.
One of the unfortunate effects of the structure of American political mythology (its story of how politics works) is that it creates a complacent and naive population. That naivete gets broken in a dramatic fashion when folks discover that adults do not believe the morality they keep preaching. One then goes through all of the stages of grief for that loss of innocence. Denial-anger-bargaining-resignation. That last often appears as a cynicism that justifies complacency. A huge part of the population lives in the complacency of denial. But some few in spite of that resignation keep up the fight. Those who do that have to do so with open eyes.
Couldn’t agree more. Sometimes it is important for the world to stop looking at us for leadership. Other countries can do things too. I’m not saying we should walk away from things – I am saying we don’t have to be the PTA moms who always organize the classroom parties. Libya is a perfect case. The Arab League has asked for a no-fly zone. But even with that invitation, America really shouldn’t be the one to enforce it. We quite simply have a PR problem in the Arab world, and it will be viewed as yet another American interference. A lot of those countries have air forces that we supplied. France and Italy are neighbors and have bombers and fighters. Europe’s vital interests are affected at least as much as ours are. This is a perfect place for other countries to carry the ball. We will send in supply personnel or something, like they did for some other coalition of the willing.
You do realise that the US constantly works against independent European military capabilities, right?
That’s what empires do.
This may be true but I’d like you to back this up if you can. I want Europe to develop its own independent power projection capacity. I want to remove all US bases and personnel from European countries. There is no longer the threat of Soviet invasion or any other need for us to have garrisons throughout Europe.
That being said, Europeans deserve blame for not stepping up to do something about this. Even when public opinion was highest against American and British wars of choice. How exactly does the US prevent an independent European military capability?
I agree that empires do not willingly take steps on their own to reduce their power.
NATO was kept to undermine EU military integration, oh and also to make sure the US military industrial complex that sets US policy also maintained a near monopoly on supplying the armies of NATO states with their military toys. The UK helped the US too. That is all well known
The world looks for our leadership because for 65 years, we’ve assumed that we are the indispensable nation and inserted ourselves into all sorts of conflicts.
The world looks for our leadership because we have presided over a Pax Americana that however imperfect has allowed the growth of global trade. For a while to our benefit.
The world looks for our leadership because we are constantly reminding them that we are the greatest hyperpower, the sole superpower, the greatest military power the world has ever known.
The world looks to our leadership to the extent that it has bought into our myths or is subject to our power.
Old habits die hard. Even when the great Oz is broke.
Apparently the presence of Saudi troops in Bahrain is not going to deter the occupation of the Pearl roundabout by protesters.
First, your title is hilarious! Unfortunately, I am quite sure you did not mean it ironically.
“It would be nice to support democracy everywhere, all the time, with no exceptions, and to never have to do business with monarchs or dictators.“
There is a world of difference between doing business with whatever government a country has in place, and what the U.S. does and has historically done, and I think you know that. Doing business with a government, whether you agree with the nature of that government, or its policies and practices, is perfectly legitimate. Interfering in and forcing your will upon other countries to put or keep systems or governments in place that serve your interests is not at all legitimate. That holds whether the system or government you impose is a brutal, oppressive dictator or monarch, or whether it is some version of “democracy” or pseudo-democracy.
Other countries do not exist to serve your interests, and should be allowed to evolve their own systems of government without you imposing your political will on them either covertly or overtly. You are then free to do business or not do business with whatever government they end up with.
I’m not sure what “legitimate” means in an international context other than in compliance with international norms. Now the question is, which norms? The professed ones or the de facto ones.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries, that given the power, would not interfere in the affairs of other countries to serve their own interests.
The US was conceived in an empire, had imperial ambitions from the beginning, and drove forward to obtain the economic an global power to serve those ambitions. Not much different from most countries’ histories actually. Right now, the US is the imperial power in decline; other countries are not obligated to like us anymore. The question is what comes next for the international system. Is it Chinese hegemony? A world government? A system of regional collective security arrangements like NATO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the African Union–that have checks and balances?
What is clear is that no matter how hard a nation tries to isolate itself from spillovers from the internal problems of other countries, it cannot. So most countries have some projection of diplomatic and military power.
So, are you condoning the US’s use of military and economic violence, and political power to force its will on other countries because it’s what countries do if they can? Does the hypocrisy of repeated pronouncements about “American principles” while the US brazenly violates them bother you, or is it all just realpolitik to you?
Am I condoning? Not if I am given real choices to change that policy. I vote. I advocate. But talk is cheap. I am progressive enough to think that principles of consent of the governed, self-determination, and checks and balances are helpful American contributions to governance. I am open-eyed enough to see that those are not put into practice and that moral arguments tend to be self-serving.
There have been times and places in which the US, for self-serving reasons, wound up doing things that history judges as helpful. US policy has not be uniformly bad.
I really wish the US would practice realpolitik on occasion. Had we done that instead of launched two wars motivated by economic elites, the response to 9/11 would have been more helpful.
US hypocrisy bothers me to no end. I have actively opposed it since 1965. But hypocrisy is not a national trait, it is a human trait. I also object when other nations use the US hypocrisy as a foil to cover their own hypocrisy. But being bothered about something does not always result in the power to actually change it. Should I carry the collective guilt of being American because of that? Remember after the 2004 election when all the folks who worked so hard to defeat George W. Bush put up a web page that was loaded with pictures of people holding signs that said “I’m sorry.” If you’re asking me about my feelings, that’s sort of where I am relative to US involvement in the Middle East.
Like other countries, domestic politics drives foreign policy (look at Iran and Saudi Arabia relative to Bahrain). The US is no different, and our domestic politics have been screwed up since the assassination of JFK.
And I think that US power in the Middle East, although substantial, is being overrated. It is too easy for Middle Eastern leaders now to use with impunity either US action or inaction as a foil for their own policies. So Netayahu can blow off US calling for an end to expansion of settlements knowing that domestic politics (and not just from AIPAC) restrains the Obama administration from yanking his funds. Or Mubarak or Gaddafi can use Western intervention as a foil to persuade people that they should remain in power even as they are cutting deals with Western interests to buy the loyalty of their security forces.
Finally, Americans are human. Why should our actions turn out to be different than any other people? Just because we have an inflated opinion of ourselves? People and societies are self-contradictory; in one sense, those contradictions are what allows rigid social systems to be transformed.
And in case you haven’t noticed, “economic violence” is now being used domestically in the US.
One of the realpolitik principles is that people power defeats money power every time. It is only a matter of time, and it occurs when the instruments of state power no longer see themselves as part of the state because it is their relatives and their friends who are getting hurt by the state. Even if the state uses outside powers to try to scare the timid into compliance. That sort of fearlessness and unity however does not occur often because of the great expense in media and weaponry and rumor and division that money is able to buy. And after it occurs, the drift is back toward division. It is at those moments that people working together can institutionalize some few checks and balances so that they can retain a little power for a little bit longer period. With a little luck, Tunisia and Egypt are at one of those moments.
Thanks for the detailed response.
I must say that at times you appear to be quite an apologist for what I consider to be odious, immoral, deeply hypocritical, and as often as not illegal policies and practices on the part of the United States. Your liberal use of the fallacious “common practice” argument is, think, part of what gives that impression. On the other hand, also pick up the impression that unhappy with the way the United States misuses its power, and are simply putting it into context as you see it. So, I asked.
There ARE countries and populations in this world who do not seem to be driven by the compulsion to dominate others, let alone to violently overpower the world. They seem quite OK with being good neighbors and good members of the world community while they focus on things like quality of life within their borders, and in some cases outside them as well.
As for why Americans should be different from other people, if you insist upon proclaiming yourself the shining example of all that is good, pure, and moral in this world; if you proclaim that you are the shining example for all to follow, then you should at the very least attempt to appear to live up to your self-hype, don’t you think?
“And just for perspective, if, say, McCain had won the election and then had a fatal stroke or something…how do you think Palin would be handling these challenges? Hell, what if McCain didn’t die? How screwed would we all be then?”
So, how’s that thing with hopey changey Bush III working out?
.
… trying to manage the Israel/Palestine conflict
You have written fine diaries on this topic, but this remark has no substance whatsoever. Trying could be synonymous with failing to advance peace in the Middle-East and independence for the Palestinian people on their land. No ifs or buts. International law and the U.N. Security Council resolutions since 1948.
See my new diary on the monarchy of Bahrain – King George ‘Bin Isa Al-Khalifa’ III.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Of course that Suadi sent the troops in shortly after a visit by Gates is irrelevant to the western media but is seen deifferently by Arabs. A nice choreographed move where the US gives a little mild condemnation while the Saudis get to storm in and lets not forget the Saudis are the most reactionary, backward and neo-nazi regime in the whole region, but they are “our” regime and so acceptable.
Of course the security council of imperialist powers that are more important than the little ones that can be blown to pieces wont take the Saudi invasion and repression of the majority of Bahrainis as seriously as an the inter tribal civil war in Libya but then Gaddafi was never such a darling of the US as the Saudi fascist dictatorship and Bahraini lunatic leader, and of course democracy, womens rights etc are just not important when it is your own puppet autocracies
Realpolitik in the world of corporate empire combined wioth their own “democratically installed” government sand their own “free media” propaganda apparatus etc is nasty and there are no good guys and the weird thing is that the western powers that are seen by many as more civilized and somewhat better than the “barbaric” foreign regimes actually come out looking worse by their blatant double standard, hypocrisy and not to be missed the far higher number of civilians they have directly or indirectly slaughtered. But never mind the world wide media will make sure the people living their wont have to feel a tad guilty or anything as it is really nothing to do with them but just something happening in a vacuum somewhere else by nasty foreigners of which many happen to be those evil Muslims.
It is good to see the notions of american exceptionalism exposed to the peoples of the world as the rather unfunny (for most who die or suffer because of it) joke that it is. Imperialism is imperialism is imperialism and it never changes in nature just in the way it presents itself
The general, and entirely plausible, belief among Arabs in general and Bahrainis in particular, is that the Saudis would never have sent troops in without an explicit green light from the Obama administration.
i heard it was the quid pro quo for the arab league getting on board the hegemon bus.