America enables its allies' -- to commit all sorts of terror. On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:37:50 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/05/04-us-allies-bad-behavior-shapiro-sokolsky?rssid=u+s+military+affairs > > > How America enables its allies' bad behavior > > More... > > [image: Description: Saudi Arabia's King Salman (R) speaks with U.S. > President Barack Obama during the summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council > (GCC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 21, 2016. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser] > > *Editors’ Note: U.S. allies behave the way they do because we let them, > write Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky. Washington has become so focused > on maintaining its relationships with its allies that it's forgotten what > the relationships were for in the first place: securing U.S. interests. > This post originally appeared on Vox > <http://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11497942/america-bad-allies>.* > > It is satisfying and certainly trendy to complain about America's allies. > President Barack Obama unloaded on them recently in an interview with the > Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg > <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/>, > > calling them "free riders" who rely on the Unites States for security but > refuse to pay back. The commentariat has piled on, with a special focus on > deteriorating relations with such perennial malcontents as Saudi Arabia > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/20/whats-really-wrong-with-the-u-s-saudi-relationship/>, > > Egypt > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/us-foreign-policy-middle-east-213723>, > > and Turkey <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-35882201>. > > The truth is that our allies behave the way they do because we let them. > We provide billions of dollars in military and other aid to countries in > order to protect and advance U.S. interests, yet we fail to use this > leverage to induce the recipients of this aid to behave in a way that > actually advances U.S. interests. > > That's because the United States has become so focused on maintaining its > relationships with its allies above all else that it's forgotten what the > relationships were for in the first place: securing U.S. interests. > > In part, this is a holdover from the days of the Cold War, when what > mattered was who was on "our side" and who was on the "their side" in the > great ideological struggle with the Soviet Union. In other words, it was > the alliance relationship itself that mattered more than anything. What our > friends did on their own time in their own countries and regions didn't > really matter, as long as they stayed our friends. > > But that's not the world we live in today. In today's complex world, where > most nations pursue cooperative and conflicting policies across different > issues, the United States should focus less on making our allies happy and > more on making them actually behave like allies. > > [T]he United States should focus less on making our allies happy and more > on making them actually behave like allies. > Allies behaving badly > > President Obama is hardly the first president to complain about U.S. > allies. Indeed, there is a long history of U.S. allies and client states > accepting billions of dollars in American military and economic largesse > only to pursue policies against US interests or carp about American > unreliability. In 1996, then-President Bill Clinton had his first meeting > with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. After the meeting, in which > the leader of one of America's most pampered allies had lectured Clinton at > length, Clinton reportedly fumed > <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/perfect-english-or-not-netanyahu-shares-no-common-language-with-obama-1.269819>, > > "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?" > > Pakistan is perhaps the most egregious example of an ally behaving badly. > As Lawrence Wright has documented > <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/16/the-double-game>, despite > (and arguably because of) the billions of dollars the United States has > invested in its relationship with Pakistan since 1954, its government (or, > more precisely, its military) has diverted U.S. military assistance to > build nuclear weapons; harbored Islamic militant groups that kill American > soldiers in Afghanistan; sheltered the Taliban and al-Qaida sympathizers > (and probably Osama bin Laden); and gave succor to the AQ Khan network, > which became a WMD Walmart for countries like North Korea, Libya, and Iran > <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/world/a-tale-of-nuclear-proliferation-how-pakistani-built-his-network.html> > > that were shopping around for equipment and expertise on how to build > nuclear weapons. > > Egypt is another case: The United States has given Egypt billions of > dollars in military assistance since 1979, avowedly for the purposes of > maintaining Israeli-Egyptian peace, which Egypt manifestly has no interest > or intention in breaking. But beyond that, the theory is that by > maintaining links with the Egyptian military elite, the United States would > be in a position create in the Egyptian officer corps a pro-Western force > for democratization. > > Alas, 35 years into that experiment, in July 2013, the Egyptian officer > corps overthrew the democratically elected Egyptian government and has > since brutally suppressed all opposition to their rule. A U.S.-trained > former Army general > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/el-sisi-egypt-dictator-103628> > > is now Egypt's dictator, but he shows little special inclination toward > democracy or Western interests. > > Saudi Arabia is yet another example. The Saudi regime is totally dependent > on US military, logistics, training, and intelligence support. The Kingdom > has no strategic alternative to U.S. protection, and its leaders know it. > Yet Saudi frequently acts against US interests in the region: trying to > stop the Iran nuclear deal, funding Islamic extremist causes across the > region, and undermining U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war in > Syria. > > So why do successive administrations continue to provide massive handouts > to America’s clients when we often get little—and sometimes worse—in return? > > Domestic lobbies and the influence of powerful constituents like the U.S. > defense industry no doubt play a role in inhibiting the United States from > holding allies and clients to account for behavior that is inimical to U.S. > interests. This is especially the case with countries like Saudi Arabia and > Egypt that procure billions of dollars worth of sophisticated U.S. weapons. > > But these defense industrial interests don’t explain why even American > allies like Turkey that don’t buy much weaponry get away with these > behaviors. And they don’t explain why even those U.S. agencies like the > State Department that have little to do with the defense industry > consistently advocate for allied interests. > Cold War legacy: either "with us" or "against us" > > The better answer is that the Cold War created pathologies that have > become deeply embedded in America’s foreign policymaking machinery, and > particularly the priority it places on "alliance management." > > During the Cold War, the United States conveniently divided the world into > those countries who were "with us" or "against us" in the global contest > for ideological, military, and geopolitical supremacy between the US and > the Soviet Union. The United States had a diplomatic playbook for dealing > with countries in both categories: reward and buy off your allies and > clients in return for their solidarity and support in the fight against > communism; contain, punish, isolate, and pressure your enemies for > supporting the Soviet Union. > > When it came to relations with our allies, what really mattered was that > they stood with us in the broader conflict—everything else was easily > forgiven or not even noticed in the name of maintaining the alliance. > Overall, this philosophy helped maintain an effective anti-Soviet front, > even when U.S. allies committed all manner of sins. As was often said about > U.S. support for brutal dictators during the Cold War, "he may be a son of > a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch." > > Today, most countries in the world are neither enemies nor vassals of the > United States. The United States works with Saudi Arabia to maintain > stability in the oil market, for example, but winces at its role as "the > chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture > <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?_r=0>." > > Egypt supports US efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and > Palestine, but prosecutes U.S.-funded NGO workers > <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/egypt-convicts-us-ngo-workers-sam-lahood>, > > including the son of the U.S. secretary of transportation, for trying to > promote democracy in Egypt. Qatar hosts an American air base that is > critical in the fight against ISIS, but actively undermines U.S. policy > in Libya and Syria > <http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/28/the-qatar-problem/>, contributing to > the chaos in those countries that allows ISIS to thrive. > > These relationships are rife with both cooperation and conflict for the > simple reason that some U.S. and partner interests are compatible while > others clash. Without the Cold War to provide discipline and context for > allied deviations, such clashes come to define the relationship. Many of > America's most important foreign relationships fall into this category, but > Washington still behaves as if the alliance relationship itself is the most > important factor. > How this enables bad behavior by our allies > > *Reverse Leverage:* Many U.S. allies are highly dependent on U.S. > support—military, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence—and they should be > bending over backward to maintain that support. Yet it is more often > Washington that performs the awkward gymnastics, bending over backward to > keep relations smooth and assistance flowing. > > Qatar, for example, is a tiny country full of natural resources surrounded > by neighbors that loathe its government. It is fully dependent on the > United States for its protection. Yet U.S. officials are afraid to call out > Qatar for its actions in Syria and Libya lest the United States lose its > military base. > > So, rather than leveraging Qatar's dependence on the US for its entire > survival to induce Qatar to stop acting against US interests in Syria and > Libya, the United States allows Qatar to leverage the United States need > for a military base in the region to induce the United States to shut up > and let it do whatever it wants. > > [I]t is more often Washington that performs the awkward gymnastics, > bending over backward to keep relations smooth and assistance flowing. > > *Moral Hazard:* In the diplomatic version of helicopter parenting, the > United States protects its client states from suffering the full > consequences of their behavior by bailing them out of trouble, incurring > the costs and adverse consequences rather than making their putative ally > bear the consequences of their actions. > > The result is a classic case of "moral hazard > <https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rnmuAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT158&ots=WMRBn2oqfg&dq=posen%20restraint%20moral%20hazard&pg=PT4#v=snippet&q=reckless%20driving&f=false>." > > For example, when Saudi Arabia intervened militarily in Yemen against US > advice, the U.S. response was nonetheless to support the intervention > <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-us.html>, > specifically to ensure that Saudi Arabia would not feel the full > consequences of failure. Naturally, the lesson that the Saudis learned is > that the United States will back them back no matter what they do. > > And in Yemen, this unconditional support has adversely affected important > U.S. interests: The increased violence and chaos caused by Saudi military > intervention has empowered al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula > <http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/09/will-al-qaeda-be-the-great-winner-of-yemens-collapse/>, > > which is based in Yemen and still considered by the US to be a dangerous > threat to the US homeland. It has diverted Saudi assets from the campaign > against ISIS, and it has escalated the conflict between the Saudis and > Iran, which is having a destabilizing effect throughout the region. > > *Endless Reassurance: *President Obama complained in the Atlantic > interview > <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/> > > that Saudi Arabia's competition with Iran is helping "to feed proxy wars > and chaos" in the Middle East, yet he made a personal trip to Saudi > Arabia > <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/world/middleeast/obama-saudi-arabia-summit.html>just > > last week to reassure the Saudis of the US commitment to Saudi Arabia's > security. > > But why should the United States care if Saudi Arabia feels like we're > abandoning it? > > Rather than trying to reassure the Saudis, the United States should be > leveraging Saudi fears of abandonment—along with the billions of dollars > in arms > <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/22/us-saudi-arabia-weapons-arms-deals-foreign-policy> > > the United States sells Saudi Arabia—to compel it to curb its actions in > the region that are feeding proxy wars and chaos. > It's not you, it's me > > As one U.S. administration official noted > <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-goldberg-world-leaders/473367/>, > > "Our allies all give us headaches, except for Australia. You can always > count on Australia." That’s great about Australia, but the overall pattern > suggests it's time to start looking closer to home for the source of these > problems. If you have one bad ally, you can blame the ally; if you have all > bad allies (except Australia), maybe it's you. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTMxNTE4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjI0NjQ5Mjc-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDRsdDM2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2MjQ2NDkyNw--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > >
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
