American foreign policy in the Middle East: a presidential perspective

American foreign policy as it manifests itself in the Middle East has long been a struggle. The last few decades have demonstrated America's attempts at finding allies and the challenges of controlling the area. After a tremendous amount of analysis and assessment, the best methods to be taken in this particular area are ones of strategic humanitarian action and development. As this paper will demonstrate, much of the discord of the area is directly connected to the fact that it's so impoverished and disadvantaged. Helping the Middle East and building where other governments would blow up, is the best way to develop the area. Such actions not only help develop the global economy, but they help to stabilize America' footing in the rest of the world. Thus, the key thesis which this paper presents is how America can create a stronger and warmer relationship with nations in the Middle East through generosity and strategic fiscal support.

Analysis of Author's Premise in OpEd article

After reviewing the OpEd piece by the Wall Street Journal, it is clear to me what the author thinks the White House should engage in as the best course of action. However, first I'd like to address the problem and praise that the WSJ writer appears to have with the current course of action that the White House has taken in Tunisia. The piece is cleverly written and seems to portray a certain ambivalence about the White House's most recent actions. For instance, the OpEd piece begins by criticizing (perhaps mildly) American actions in the Middle East, saying that America has been slow to respond to the needs of the Middle East and sluggish in taking action. However, the OpEd piece does use that piece of criticism as a springboard for praising (mostly) our most recent actions with this region.

The article evaluates how the White House most recently agreed to give $100 million dollars in the next year along with $30 million in foreign bonds to help make the transition of Tunisia towards the access of foreign markets smoother. There was some mild criticism inserted in this praise. The WSJ writer acknowledged how past gifts to foreign countries are often used to fund the work of U.S. consultants there, but that this gift was different. While it is true that past funding for countries in need has been in part used to pay the U.S. leaders and brave men and women who work there, this remark made it look like all foreign aid given in the past was just an empty gesture to simply line the pockets of diplomats and conflict resolution specialists. Such criticism is heavy handed and unwarranted.

The WSJ assesses the economic strain that America is currently undergoing, but still explains that the move we just made was a wise one. Reminding the reader about the fruit vendor who set himself on fire in protest of the unresponsive and corrupt government is a fitting move and one which aptly reflects why the White House has taken the actions it did. Aggressive and strategic action needs to occur in Tunisia immediately, or else it's just going to become another ticking time bomb in the Middle East. America has enough foes in the Middle East; it doesn't need another. Now is the time to strategically and proactively start seeking out allies. One of the most effective ways to do this is via foreign aid. However, the question remains, as the author of this article aptly points out, how this aid will be used.

At the same time, the WSJ seems to be pointing out that at the White House; we have made a smart decision with our foreign aid. Tunisia is not like just any Arab country as its post-revolutionary transition has been much smoother than in other countries. Other countries dealt with civil unrest and corruption whereas in Tunisia, the country was able to hold democratic elections. As the WSJ illuminates, this was a marked sign of progress and change and something which heavily influenced the decision of the U.S. To provide aid to this country. it's true as the WSJ article proclaims, coming to Tunisia's aid was very much a necessity in many ways as the Prime Minister had just told Hillary Clinton that the nation desired a close and strategic partnership with the U.S. As the writer of the article asserts, offering the aid was a way to demonstrate to the nation that America helps its friends. However, it's more than that. Supplying Tunisia with foreign aid in the form of bonds and cash injected straight into their government means that we will be in a position to guide and help the nation achieve and move in a concerted direction where we want them to. While Tunisia has made a tremendous amount of strides and progress in the last few years, they're still in an incredibly vulnerable place. They can continue to move forward or they can move backwards, following more in the footsteps of countries like Libya and Syria.

The WSJ while praising this move of the U.S. did say that we've injected $100 million dollars into the government's coffers. On the one hand, I'm pleased that the WSJ acknowledges the amount and the directedness of the funding that we've provided Tunisia with, the article didn't go into any details about how the money will be spent in the country. This means that either the WSJ doesn't know how the money will be spent, or doesn't feel that it's necessary to acknowledge -- or, in its omission, is implying that there is no plan as to how the money will be spent. This couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. has made such an injection of cash into this nation and has supported that injection with additional fiscal support in the form of bonds because there is a highly detailed and highly proactive plan to support the development of Tunisia. We have not made this expenditure only to see Tunisia slip into unrest, or renegade action or to see the country stay in poverty. This expenditure has been made to see the country flourish with the help of the U.S. And to demonstrate our loyalty to nations who are willing to cooperate with us.

One of the my favorite parts of this article is the WSJ's apt assessment of the current economic state of Tunisia in that it makes the most lucid evaluation of this nation -- essentially summarizing why the U.S. is forming such a strong alliance and partnership with this country. Tourism, foreign investments and overall visitation to Tunisia has dropped and thus pushing economic growth down and with it, joblessness up. Given this current state, investors remain dubious of investing in the country, even though the growth of the economy has started to revive. The money that we've pledged to Tunisia will indeed cover the urgent needs of the country, as the WSJ article points out. However, the writer doesn't dwell on how crucial it is that those urgent needs of the country are covered. If the urgent needs of the country such as money for schools, roads, supermarkets, and for other forms of the country's infrastructure, are not addressed, then Tunisia can far too easily plummet into instability. When a country's people start to live dangerously below the poverty level that means that the nation becomes ripe for victimization or for terrorist groups to start to thrive.

One of the most obvious examples of such a trend occurred with Germany post World War I. Not only was the Treaty of Versailles not enforced, but Germany was a country that was living in extreme economic decline. Thus, this was an environment where people were struggling, living conditions were difficult and it was hence ripe for an extremist and subversive ruler like Hitler to come to power. Hitler was able to offer "answers" (such as in scapegoating the Jews) and ultimately this caused one of the worst genocides of U.S. history. Thus, one needs to consider the dangerous circumstances that could descend upon Tunisia if the country is left to wallow in economic decline, with the needs of their people not being met -- while the country is located in a Middle Eastern hotbed of sorts for terrorism, subversions and while being surrounded by a range of politically unstable countries. This is a clear and obvious recipe for the country to lapse into civil war, terrorism and other forms of national wretchedness. The injection of money that the U.S. has made is truly just a humble amount in the larger scheme of things: it would ultimately cost more to have to invade the country with U.S. military presence later, after the country had lapsed into corruption and depravity without U.S. aid.

Another thing that the WSJ article did was it highlighted how they feel I and my administration have somewhat dropped the ball on forward momentum with the Middle East. The article references how I made a speech on the Middle East last May and how I had indeed pledged to pursue bilateral free trade agreements with developing democracies, but then the subject was "dropped" as the writer says. Again, the press is not aware of all that goes on in the White House behind closed doors. Just because the matter was not publicly mentioned again in a direct fashion, does not mean that it was dropped. My team and I have continually discussed the best course of action for fostering trade with Tunisia and setting a much stronger precedent in the Middle East. The WSJ has actually zeroed in on the connection between this injection of fiscal support to Tunisia and our intentions to foster free trade with the entire Middle East.

The WSJ thinks that we should strike a trade deal with Tunisia and to also designate as a strategic economic nation. I and the entire White House is flattered that the Wall Street Journal would give us such obvious and prosaic advice on plans that we've already come up with ourselves. Of course the U.S. is trying to establish some sort of trade deal with Tunisia. I find it difficult to comment on the obviousness of such advice and commentary. It is so obvious that we want Tunisia to be in a place of economic stability and to have both trust and faith in the U.S. so that we can begin a free trade agreement. This concept is so evident and so transparent, I'm surprised that the WSJ put it into print and that such a newspaper could even consider such an idea newsworthy. Of course we intend to establish a close and consistent rapport with Tunisia so that Tunisia can be a living example in the region of the stability and prosperity that can be achieved when nations collaborate and cooperate with the U.S. There is a great deal of possibility here. It is incredibly possible that the U.S. can forge strong relations with Tunisia, bring Tunisia to a place of strength and constancy and that this will spark more Middle Eastern nations the desire to mimic the footsteps that this nation has taken. it's just somewhat disappointing that a periodical like the Wall Street Journal feels that they need to point out such ideas to us as if we hadn't already thought of them.

Obviously and evidently, our injection of cash into Tunisia is not simply about mere crisis relief or about making sure terrorism doesn't gain a stronger foothold in the nation. While these things are important to us, this injection of money was more about development and about sparking a domino effect in the region. If anything, I feel that this OpEd piece demonstrates a lack of faith of the WSJ in myself and the entire White House. This OpEd piece merely gives the U.S. foreign policy moves in Tunisia and the Middle East as a whole a slight smattering of credit, while pointing out what they see as our past short-comings and mistakes. Then the OpEd piece feels compelled to give the White House advice -- fundamentally telling us to take the course of action that we've most obviously decided upon. While as a whole the piece is positive and we appreciate that, the tone often falls into a dangerously condescending place at times, which is both grating and unnecessary.

Thus, in terms of this OpEd piece, the most powerful Instrument of National Power is one which is economic. Showing economic support to countries in the Middle East is the best way to express diplomatic relations. Economic support helps to build allies and strengthen friendships in the area, making nations more receptive to suggestions and the needs of the U.S. Fundamentally, America can replicate the exact actions that it has taken with Tunisia and repeat them with other countries such as Libya or Syria.

Course of Action and how COA supports U.S. Interests

One of the preeminent actions that the U.S. must take is that it must use strong and targeted effort in Tunisia and in the entire Middle East to help fund and support development. Development in the nations of this area of the world is absolutely pivotal in order to manifest the values of America and for stable international order for the global community. While America is very often the big brother or watch guard for the rest of the world, this doesn't mean that America is committed to giving handouts to poorer nations indefinitely. Rather, one of the fundamental values of America as a global leader and a leader in the western world is to give money as a form of investment. These countries absolutely need to view the money which is bestowed to them as a means of investment for the future to help them develop.

Thus, as the OpEd piece reflects, the fiscal support that America offers other nations is not charity. Rather it's a boost that America provides to other countries in order that they can eventually stand on their own two feet. The fiscal support is a show of loyalty and a big demonstration of encouragement: a sign that the country will be able to stand on their own two feet eventually.

Hillary Clinton sees diplomacy and development as two aspects which go hand in hand and factors which are crucial when it comes to U.S. foreign relations [p.198]. As Clinton says, we must not just rebuild, we must rethink and recalibrate as well. Obviously, U.S. actions in the past have not produced the most desired and ideal results as one would want: if they had, more nations would be self-sufficient and would not be so reliant upon the generosity of the international community. Thus, the forward momentum of U.S. involvement must continue, but as Clinton urges, it needs to be done in a more strategic manner so that results are more apparent to all. And as Clinton illuminates, helping nations al around the world (even when the U.S. has pressing issues at home) might seem counter-intuitive but is one of the most effective ways to ensure U.S. stability and prosperity over the long-run, two factors that are no doubt meaningful to U.S. values as a whole [Clinton pg. 202]. For instance, supporting countries that simply need a little help which can then take that help and achieve stability and then become a partner to the U.S. In America's goals and desires is truly a special and important endeavor and one which no doubt fosters the interests of the country.

One such obvious example of this that has worked effectively in the past has been U.S. aide and support to Israel, something which began as far back as with the Truman administration. Israel has been a recipient of fiscal support from the U.S. For decades and decades. This was not done strictly out of the goodness of America's heart, but because it was in America's vested interest to keep Israel stable. Stable Israel meant that it would not be a victim to terrorism, or was likely to be less of victim. More importantly, a warm and supportive relationship with Israel meant that the U.S. had an ally in the Middle East, something that has long been absolutely important for American interests. Military aid to Israel now manifests as military assistance. The fact that the U.S. has been able to maintain this rapport for so long is good and furthers U.S. interests. In helping Israel back with the Truman administration, the U.S. established that it was a strong and benevolent presence in the Middle East. As one politician once proclaimed, calling Israel an "American Aircraft Carrier" in the Middle East, it has indeed been a strategic alliance. All the help that Israel has received from America has meant that America has a safe place in the Middle East regardless of what may occur. Thus, there's no reason that Tunisia or even Libya or Syria can't follow in such footsteps with a little U.S. help received consistently over decades so that they too can eventually become strong allies of America and work together to pursue common interests.

While the U.S. is busy investing in the needs of foreign nations, it also needs to take a turn in downsizing the money it spends on its military, without question. The U.S. spends more on its military than any country in the world [Rachman pg. 326]. In this day and age that's simply not a wise expenditure anymore. Even though defense is a crucial element of the U.S. values of security, one could argue that the U.S. could bolster its level of security to a more heightened degree if it worked on investing strategically on a range of countries all over the world who were in need. Again, these fiscal expenditures would not be in the form of handouts, but would be clear investments to help these nations develop. Thus, rather than being known for grotesque foreign policy, the U.S. would have much warmer relations with nations all over the world, and using money to establish this rapport would be a way to engage in preventative security. Rather than arming ourselves against terrorism or threats of violence, the U.S. would be able to achieve a higher level of safety by having fewer enemies and more allies around the world.

However, as Reveron illuminates, U.S. security measures of late have taken a more holistic perspective and have sought to win over the hearts and minds of people around the world [pg. 359]. This is problematic as the U.S. military has a strong track record of failing at humanitarian efforts [pg. 359]. Thus, what the U.S. needs to do is simple: it needs to scale back military spending and use relief organizations like U.S. Aid and investment companies to stimulate and stabilize the foreign economies abroad. However, as Hofman points out, giving aid to impoverished and struggling nations is not as simplistic as it may seem. Nations like Afghanistan are in need of aggressive help from impartial sources, and the U.S. simply doesn't fit in that category anymore.

However, this doesn't mean that the U.S. can't fight for causes that it believes in or for outcomes that it believes to be the most just. For instance, some believe that Gaddafi should be dealt with by Libyans exclusively [Norton-Taylor & Hoffman, pg. 383], but this is simply a naive perspective. Gaddafi has committed crimes that are of the utmost concern to the entire international community. To assert that he's only the problem of Libya is simply outrageous. In this spirit, in order to further its own security, international security and prosperity at home, the U.S. needs to leverage the United Nations in a more meaningful way. While some scholars see the danger inherent in the UN [Price p. 385], the reality is that the UN has achieved a tremendous amount of good for the rest of the world and the global community at large. The fact that certain evil-doers like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez have used the UN to further their corrupt agendas [Price, p. 385] is just a sign that the UN needs to be better regulated, as the good of the UN vastly outweighs any bad. Giving corrupt world leaders no platform for furthering their skewed agendas is the ultimate decision and an ideal one.

Instruments of National Power

National power needs to be used in a far more strategic manner; as Kristof illuminates, currently the U.S. uses its power in an extremely lopsided fashion: by overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in tools for diplomacy [220]. This point was alluded to earlier as being quite likely the most effective tool that the U.S. has in achieving a higher level of security domestically (and with it a greater amount of stability both financially and otherwise) would be to build things up rather than blow things up [Kristof pg. 221]. Helping the nations that are currently "on the fence" with their enemy or ally status towards the U.S. are truly some of the most influential nations which offer a great deal of promise for the future. By ingratiating itself with such nations, the U.S. truly has the potential to establish strong friendships which are absolutely crucial for the future and which can serve to give it a stronger and more comfortable foothold in these nations around the world. As Kristof says, build, rather than blow things up -- such as building schools and means of microfinancing [221]. Such notions are comparable to Schaub's points about how American engagement with the world needs to put on a more civilian face.