Strategic Incoherence

Ezra Klein interviews Chas Freeman, longtime American diplomat and former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, about our Middle East policy:

Ezra Klein: Others have made the point that in helping the opposition in Syria and now in trying to strengthen the government in Baghdad we're really intervening on both sides of the same conflict. Do you think that's fair?

Chas Freeman: I think that's correct. The contradictions and incoherence of our strategy really beggar the imagination. And it's not limited of course to the Iraqi and Syrian issues. We are trying to arm moderate opposition to Assad but that armed Islamists. We're trying to back Baghdad which is helping Assad remain in power. Any solution that boosts Assad or Baghdad helps Iranians. So all of this boosts Iran's prestige in the region and alienates Saudi Arabia and other traditional partners in the region.

This all goes back to two decisions made by Bush II. First, to wage war against the Taliban, al Qaeda and allied Sunni radicals while remaining cozy with the Sunni radicals who rule Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This from the start put us on both sides of the conflict, since the main support for the Taliban, al Qaeda and now ISIS comes from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This may have been unavoidable, but it did not make for any sort of clear strategic vision.

Second was to overthrow Saddam Hussein while still insisting that Islamic radicalism, especially as expressed by Iran's Shi'ite government, was the real threat. Saddam Hussein's Iraq may have been the most secular state in the Middle East and it was certainly the number one regional foe of Shi'ite radicalism, so his removal only strengthened the Islamic and especially Iranian radicals we claimed to hate. This was completely avoidable, and it completed our immersion in incoherence.

I think Cheney, Addington, Wolfowitz et al. actually understood this. Their plan was to get away from having to choose between Islamic fundamentalists and nasty dictators by creating a third force, Arab democracy. They failed spectacularly. Maybe it was a gamble worth taking, although I for one thought from the start that it was mad wishful thinking. You can't summon a new political order into being with a couple of armored divisions.  As a result we are left with the same old choices and are trying to be both against and for both of them.