Peter Beinart has a smart column on the wisdom of U.S. strategic patience while the Arab revolutions undo al-Qaeda's central arguments.
Now we may be witnessing the end of the “war on terror” as well. The rise of democratically elected Arab regimes that are less beholden to the United States represents Osama bin Laden’s and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s worst nightmare. The only source of their appeal was their opposition to American foreign policy at a time when other Middle Eastern leaders looked like corrupt flunkies for the U.S. and Israel.
America will still face huge challenges in the Middle East, mostly because Arabs and Muslims no longer stand in awe of our power. But they won’t be the challenges of discredited, destitute tyrants. They’ll be the challenge of politically accountable, economically modernizing regimes that throw in their lot with China, India, Russia, or Brazil, and question America’s right to patrol the Middle East and cheaply consume the oil under its soil.
Of course, patience isn't the same as disengagement. This counterargument notwithstanding, a NATO no-fly mission over Libya makes sense, at least while Qaddafi's repression crests. Whatever-comes-next will have to deal with the U.S., but it would be preferable for the U.S. to come to the aid of Arab dissidents when they're at their time of extreme peril. Right now, the region sees the U.S. declining to criticize its Yemeni or Iraqi allies and positively endorsing the Bahrani hosts for the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
But Peter is right that this is unfathomably worse for al-Qaeda, who now have a central argument discredited by people who don't buy into its critique at all. Don't miss Scott Shane's analysis knitting it all together.
Comments