Why does the United States have an inconsistent policy in the middle east - Essay Example

? Order 523545 Topic: Why does the United s have an inconsistent policy in the Middle East? Introduction The analysis of the contents of the book needs to start with the imaginative title. I say imaginative and I wonder how intelligently the author has placed the word ‘Faith’ protected by the two other words in the title ‘Power’ and ‘Fantasy.” America’s own faith and the faith of the other nations on it, firstly on account of its awesome power, both economic/ military and next, its actions of fantasy in the pursuit of policy of self-interest are ingrained in the title. The personal credentials of the historian have some bearing the contents of the history that one produces. Michael B. Oren an Israeli historian is eminently suited to explore the mysterious blend of the three qualities about the American foreign policy. The intentions of the top American political leaders are great; their concern for the safety of the humankind of the world is even greater. In the process of implementation professed inclinations it has committed in the past and it continues to commit some of the greatest mistakes. But the strong belief of America that the rotations and revolutions of Planet Earth happen on accounts of the policies framed at the White House is a totally mistaken notion. With that approach, America suffers; the countries suffer immensely when America strikes in the area of its choice in the Middle East, assuring the world, that by striking hard, there will be no need to strike again and again. Many of its strikes have resulted in ‘self-goals!” Just like one muffled drum spoils the symphony of the entire orchestra—the cumulative goodwill of America has suffered intensely on account of such ill-conceived military adventures. It has been the same story in the Middle through the ‘ages’—right from the Barbary Wars and the current predicament in Iraq. The Hollywood entertainers tell about the adventures of the war for 3-4 hours. But the real Hollywood that destroys the nations is in Washington! With the emergence of America as the strong economic power in the twentieth century, the line of thinking of the American Presidents assumed great heights, and they began to take important decisions that had immense bearing on the political climate of the world with alarming speed. Woodrow Wilson’s ambivalent response to Arab and Zionist calls for self-determination was one such example. Harry Truman’s recognition of Israel thirty years later was another example. America continued to intervene in Middle East affairs at regular intervals, Suez in 1956, 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War, Islamic challenge in Iran in 1979—America was actively engaged in all these conflicts. America began to view the issues in a different perspective with the end of the Cold War and found itself in a different ring. Peter L. Hahn(2006,p.1) writes, “Committed to containing communism around the globe, the Harry S. Truman and Dwight E. Eisenhower administrations strove to maintain access to petroleum resources, military bases, and lines of communication in the Middle East and to deny these assets to the Soviet Union.”Subsequently, the ‘clash of civilizations’ issue entered the centre stage and it was serious one that needed entirely different strategies. The danger of Islam was real, and suddenly America began to feel that every Islamic country was threat to its security in one way or the other. Osama Bin Laden’s ill-conceived adventure to down the World Trade Center on 9/11 hurt the prestige of America intensely and the rejoicing of the Muslim countries was short-lived. America began to charge the Muslim countries one after another, on one pretext or the other, like a bull on rampage. Can America be condemned on this account? Not entirely. Oren’s argument is, U.S. interests in the Middle East have other deep roots than the oil-diplomacy of the U.S.—Israel alliance. The three themes mentioned in the title of the book are not water-tight compartment, they work in tandem. No one can doubt the American perennial claim that its regional involvement policy is linked to pursuit of national interests, by employing the tools of powers of diplomacy to start with, and then economic and military. The actions need not be necessarily in that order, and will depend on the priorities of America at the given time. America’s historical thinking is that it is also a morally superior country. The superior Christian image seeps through the mind-set and actions of America. The Christian missionaries have been doing since centuries the necessary groundwork to alter the lifestyles of the people of the Middle East. Michael B. Oren writes (2007, p.141) “The restorationist ideas once prevalent among the evangelical churches of the colonial America had deeply penetrated the mainstream.”The resurgent, fundamentalist Islamic leaders react to this line of thinking strongly, with violent deeds, eliciting tough reactions from U.S. often with military actions and savage bombings. Michael B. Oren expresses his views on the Muslim issue in an interview with Robert Siegel: “Would a Muslim reading this history be wrong in coming away with a message that American dreamers, thinkers, travelers, soldiers, diplomats, have viewed Islam, almost consistently with contempt from the 19th century until rather recently?”(Perspective….) “OREN: With very few exceptions-- Certainly back in the colonial period, in the 19th century, America engaged what can now be called, for a better word, Islam bashing… And the image of the hostile Muslim, the Saracen, persists throughout the 19th century, well into the 20th century, as well. I think it's only recently that Americans have begun to take a deeper look at Islam, perhaps even post-9/11, to distinguish between different forms of Islam, different interpretations of Islam. Though America, I believe, has a long way to go, it has made significant progress in this way.”(Perspective….) This in short, is the issue before America. Conclusion: Missionary activities have shaped the current thinking of Americans at all levels of military/civil administration. Being a historian, Oren has the correct measure of the historical developments and he has handled this issue well in the book to tell how this factor contributed to the inconsistent policy of the United States in the Middle East. The American policy continues to oscillate like a pendulum between pragmatism and idealism with Middle East countries. Decades ago, Oren writes, Harry S. Truman insisted, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power . . . for some great purpose. . . . It is given to us to defend the spiritual values . . . against the vast forces of evil that seek to destroy them." (p.476)This attitude continues with the present day American leadership as well, though in a lesser degree. Works Cited Oren, Michael B, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition, January 16, 2007. Perspective on U.S. Middle East Policy: NPR29 Jan 2007 ... Robert Siegel talks with Michael B. Oren, author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present. ... Retrieved on April 13, 2011 Hahn, Peter L, Caught in the Middle East: U.S. Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1945-1961, The University of North Carolina Press, and February 27, 2006. Read More