Middle Eastern Political Dilemmas?
Is Military Intervention the Solution to Middle Eastern Political Dilemmas?
The Middle Eastern region is currently ranked as one of the highly dangerous areas in the globe. Both Israel and Egypt have offered suggestions to the Security Council to denote the Middle East as a nuclear-free zone. Discussions regarding agreements to ban biological and chemical weapons along with questions associated with the preservation of the environment are in the works. But instead of focusing attention in a futile manner on isolated problems, the Great Powers including America must consider the rearrangement of the political setup of the Middle East. However, using military force to intervene in Middle Eastern politics has been considered to be a failure by many, if controversially so. The Gulf War of 1992 and the US war of Iraq in 2003 are two exemplary examples of this view. Military solution is not the answer since it would be extremely irresponsible for one of the most important regions in the globe to become metalized with bigotry and hatred, bristling with arms and permanently tottering on the edge of war that could turn more uncontrollable with the development of technology .
The entire Middle East happens to be one of the most violent and volatile subsystems in the system of international politics since the close of the World War II. The term “Middle East” encompasses the states of the Levant including Palestine and Turkey, North Africa and the Gulf of Persia. The peripheral nations like Central Asia and the Caucuses belong to the Middle East region. The history of the Middle East, following the events of the war, is punctuated by an extremely large number of full-scale conflicts between the various states.
According to Kenneth Waltz in the book “Man, the State and War”, the origin of the wars can be identified via the three main themes of international relations viz. war as the outcome of the behaviour of man and nature, as a product of the internal organization of nation states and as the result of international anarchy. The three factors deal with influences that lead the state to war – the first image emphasizes the beliefs and personality of the leader as a reason to go to war; the second focuses on domestic political power as the cause of conflict while the final image blames the international and regional power games. But it will not be wrong to consider the state as the most vital factor in the field of international politics and the main reason for the wars in the global arena.
Waltz states that the first two groups of influences are comparatively inessential but the third set is valuable. Therefore, states do not partake in battle due to the nature of the leader or their domestic ideology or political structure but rather because of the burden placed upon them from the international environment. The three international relations images of Waltz form a helpful analytical system for determining the causes of war. The best aspect of the framework happens to be its universal applicability. The framework can help examine the cause of a lone war or a series of conflicts in any part of the world at any point in history. The political turmoil in the Middle East is no exception.
In order to analyze the conditions of conflict in the Middle East, the analytical framework of Waltz may be modified to consider the particular situation of the Middle East. The framework recognizes three essential factors that result in the outbreak of wars in the Middle East such as the inter-Arab relations, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the interactions of the Great Powers with the region. The three-fold division of the modified framework, however, differs from Waltz’s version. In the latter, the three levels are the state, the individual and the international system. The framework of Waltz concentrates on exploring the three groups of interaction between states. The framework considers states to be the main unit of analysis. The states include the Middle Eastern states like Israel and her Arab neighbors along with the Great Powers such as the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and France. These are the states that dominate international politics, including the situation in the Middle East after the close of the Second World War. It is the actions and policies of the states which are supposedly responsible for the war in the area .
The character of pervasive insecurity in the Middle East seems to be responsible the lack of establishment of civil society and political development in the Middle East. From the Persian Gulf to Morocco, both the radical and moderate leaderships throughout the region have started to age. Hence, the states in the Middle East are likely to face destabilizing successions. The durability of traditional authoritarian leaderships and monarchies exists in an era of reduced control, reform pressures and increased transparency. The issue of unresolved political futures happens to be a major factor in the evolution of the strategic nature of the Middle East that is soon to gain greater significance after the fall of the present generation of leaders . The violence of different political and military regimes in the Middle East against civilians as well as their crimes against humanity possesses the potential to incite a full-fledged civil war. Proposals to militarize the conflict even further through direct armed intervention and the resolution of the government to supply arms to the opposition forces by the United States have met with sharp criticism.
The intervention of the US military in the Middle East, especially in Syria, is likely to heighten the conflict and result in bloodshed to a large extent. If the strategic position of Syria in the Middle Eastern region is taken into account, involvement of the foreign military groups might spark greater violence in the region along with proxy wars. The terrifying violence in Syria has a history tainted by the roots of strife and conflict like the presence of an authoritarian government, wealth distribution and inequitable power, sectarian divisions, widespread pressures on natural resources and a harsh legacy of foreign intervention and colonial legacy. The uprising in Syria, similar to other conflicts in the Middle East, began through strong demonstrations of nonviolence. The presence of the United States is crucial in this aspect since the state is able to promote the protection of the civilians as well as a resolution of the crisis by showing constant support in favor of an immediate ceasefire on the violence along with comprehensive, thorough negotiations among the political factions in Syria and the neighboring countries of the state.
The US needs to foster non-military, diplomatic efforts with the Arab League, including the present initiative led by Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the UN. America possesses a wide collection of diplomatic tools devised to press Iran, China and Russia to use their influence with the regime in Assad to put an end to the killings and enable a political process to deal with the crisis. Moreover, an arms embargo must be established via the Security Council of the UN for sanctions against industries involved in developing weapons to supply the Syrian regime. Multilateral as well as bilateral discussions with Iran are a must for the United States since it will go a long way to decrease the threat of more deadly conflict in the Syrian region. The International Criminal Court must be given the authority to carry out investigations of crimes against humanity. The United States will provide ample development and humanitarian assistance to international and local aid and development agencies as well as support of post-conflict reconciliation and peace-building activities. Robust support along with improved capacities for civilians is a must in order to help prevent mass atrocities prior to the beginning of the killings.
Intense engagement on an international level is necessary for this kind of humanitarian and diplomatic approach to meet with success. The recommendations offer a great chance to put an end to the violence in the Middle East, restrict the loss of life and put the Middle Eastern states on the fast track towards peace, reconciliation and stability . There are several political forces in operation in the Middle East. The war has several causes, the most notable among them being the relations between the Arab states, the conflict between Israel and the Arabian states and the involvement of the Great powers. However, the relative weight of every factor varies from one war to the other. It is natural that in most of the battles fought in the Middle East, the greatest factor was the conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs. The relations between the individual Arab states were an important reason for the outbreak of the Six-Day Way which began in June of 1967 as well as the Gulf War of 1991. The involvement of the Great Powers is not an important a factor as the previous two wars but it did result in the outbreak of the Gulf War and the Suez War.
Kenneth Waltz’s three-level analysis allows the examination of the complicated forces that resulted in one of the most important wars of the Middle East, the seven large scale wars between Israel and the Arab states. Instead of offering the impression of bewildering complexity, the analytical system devised by Waltz helps highlight the vital factors behind every war. The political dilemmas in the Middle East leading to warfare should be analyzed on the basis of the relative weight of the different factors in contrast to focusing on a single factor. Due to the presence of a large number of factors in the field and their interconnectedness, it is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of every conflict in the Middle East .
The United States has a major presence in the Middle East and so, it is necessary for the nation to understand the uses and limitations of military power. Deterrence is going to be the best option only if the Middle Eastern states realize the firm commitment of the country to maintaining order and peace and it is a well-informed public that promotes commitment and national will. In recent times, the line between war and peace has been drawn very clearly as opposed to other periods in history. In the nuclear age, it is necessary to have full awareness of the results of a single misstep. But, still convinced of the worth of freedom enjoyed by the public, the United States attempts to avoid conflict while ensuring that its defenses remain strong. The country maintains a policy of peace but they are ready to fight back in case of a war. This is extremely different from the situation in the Middle East where the circumstances are volatile and it cannot be predicted from which direction threats may appear .
The question of cooperation and unity in the Arab world has been discussed extensively by renowned scholars. According to Michael Hudson, author of “Middle East Dilemma: The Politics and Economics of Arab Integration”, the nature of politics in the Middle East region may be understood via a careful analysis of current experiments, past trials and upcoming prospects. It is necessary to consider the political, diplomatic and economic dimensions of cooperation in the Arab countries at the sub-regional and regional levels.
The integration of the Arab countries must be considered in a regional context that has undergone change due to the peace process between Israel and the Arabs and the Second Gulf War. Alongside these considerable changes in the environment of the Middle East, there happen to be transformations in the international setting which have been influenced by the end of the Cold War as well as the growth and development of globalized markets. Such numerous circumstances have led to the rise of new opportunities and constraints to make sure that the nature of the integration of the Arab world in the future will vary significantly from its form in the past .
The UN-assisted Gulf War of 1991 saw the presence of an authorized coalition force consisting of thirty four different nations led by the United States against the nation of Iraq in response to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. The war was unique since it marked the start of live news directly on the front lines of the battle. Initial warfare to expel the troops of Iraq began with aerial bombardment followed rapidly by a ground assault. The Coalition forces won a decisive victory; they not only managed to liberate the nation of Kuwait but were able to advance on the territory in Iraq. The ground campaign marked the end of the advance of the coalition forces and they declared a ceasefire for 100 hours.
Most of the ground and aerial combat was restricted to the borders of Iraq and Kuwait along with the outskirts of Saudi Arabia. Iraq had retaliated by launching Scud missiles against the military targets of the coalition in Saudi as well as to exhibit their might to Israel. The main reasons for the Gulf War were territorial and economic in nature. The nation of Iraq was riddled with financial debt and there were mounting tensions within the society. The country owed the greater part of its debt to Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait. Iraq pressurized both the nations to forgive each other’s debts but they clearly refused. Iraq even claimed Kuwait as a part of the territory of Iraq. The country moved fast to reject the attempts of Iraq and secure more provisions in the area.
When the coalition forces entered Iraq, the troops of the Middle Eastern nation were not only poor trained but lacked experience and proper resources. The US possessed not only superiority in terms of numbers but considerable advantage of technology. Thus, the Gulf War shows how outmatched the Middle East was against the Great States. It exhibits the ruthlessness of external military influence and presents a striking view of its inability to take charge of the political atmosphere in the Middle East.
America had its sights set on Iraq much before the 9/11 attacks, mostly as it wanted to exercise its military dominance and could not risk the development of a “new rival” on the global platform. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 can be considered a strategic move to improve the hegemony of the US and control natural resources, especially oil, in the Middle Eastern region following the Gulf War of 1990-91. The US administration during Clinton’s time exhibited weariness in their invasion of Iraq. But, they imposed brutal sanctions which led to loss of innocent lives as punishment for the crimes of Saddam on Kuwait. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 stressed the change in regime in Iraq and established the groundwork for the invasion of 2003.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had dealt a serious blow to the Western vital interests and so the Security Council moved real fast to adopt the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the region. Economic sanctions in the future indicated the Gulf crisis no longer remained a regional topic . Most of the claims of the Bush administration against Iraq were fabricated to sell the war to the American public who were traumatized by the recent acts of terrorism. Iraq was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction and was linked to both Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. But not a single one of these claims could be substantiated .
Several commentators hold the opinion that the war in Iraq occurred due to faulty intelligence. Almost seven years following the 2003 invasion, America realized its mistake after direct involvement of the military in the administration process came to an end. US President Barack Obama in 2010 established a new speech policy to showcase that the public opinion in America had undergone a sea change within the elapsed time. George W. Bush had prematurely declared a close to important operations in combat in 2003 and most Americans at that time supported the war . The mood of the public was changed when allegations of torture were raised against US soldiers in 2004. The campaigns of bloody terror carried out by the Sunni militia groups in Iraq began in 2006 and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and American troops. This incident had immense significance in changing the opinion of the public .
Military involvement is not the feasible solution to deal with the political turmoil in the Middle Eastern states. In fact, the actions of the military might have negative results for the nations. The two wars in Iraq are some of the best instances of the lapse of better judgment on the part of the United States and shows why military tactics are ill-suited to handle the political turmoil in the Middle East. Such military interventions, although may eventually topple dictatorships and install democratic governments, however, the price at which this change is attained is far too great. The number of soldiers as well as civilians who have died during the course of the occupation of Iraq has left a heavy mark on the minds of both American as well as Iraqi people. The presence of foreign troops, particularly American, in a region where the Israel-Palestine conflict has created a highly negative perception of America among the common populace only serves to further raise insecurities. Hence, instead of pursuing ‘shock and awe’ military methods, relying on diplomacy and open dialogue to win public trust would be a more suitable means of resolving Middle Eastern conflicts.
Works Cited
Ball, G. W., 1990. In Search Of Answers To The Middle East Crisis We Must Plan Now To Head Off The Next Crisis In That Region If Iraq Should Fall, Syria Or Iran Could Pose The Next Threat To Peace. [Online] Available at: http://articles.philly.com/1990-12-07/news/25924012_1_sanctions-withdrawal-of-iraqi-forces-kuwait[Accessed 30 May 2013].
Dugan, A., 2013. On 10th Anniversary, 53% in U.S. See Iraq War as Mistake. [Online] Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx[Accessed 30 May 2013].
FCNL, 2013. U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Not the Answer. [Online] Available at: http://fcnl.org/issues/middle_east/syria_statement/[Accessed 30 May 2013].
Khadduri, M. & Ghareeb, E., 1997. War in the Gulf, 1990 - 91: The Iraq-Kuwait Conflict and Its Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lesser, I. O., Nardulli, B. R. & Arghavan, L. A., 1998. Chapter 4 - Suorces of Conflict in the Greater Middle East. In: K. Zalmay & I. O. Lesser, eds. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century - Regional Futures and U.S. Strategy. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, pp. 171-229.
Pearlman, W., 2000. Middle East Dilemma: The Politics and Economics of Arab Intergration. The Arab Studies Journal, 2(1), pp. 129-131.
Shlaim, A., 1996. The Middle East: The origins of Arab-Israeli Wars. In: N. Woods, ed. Explaining International Relations since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219-240.
The Daily Currant, 2013. George W. Bush Apologizes for Iraq War. [Online] Available at: http://dailycurrant.com/2013/03/20/george-bush-apologizes-iraq-war/[Accessed 30 May 2013].
The Economist, 2010. US Public Opinion on Iraq - Big Mistake. [Online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/16930683[Accessed 30 May 2013].
Weinberger, C. W., 1984. The Uses of Military Power - Remarks prepared for delivery by the Hon. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, to the National Press Club, Washington D. C.. [Online] Available at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/weinberger.html[Accessed 30 May 2013].
