U.S. Middle East Policy

At the end of the Cold War, the US was faced with no real enemy to fight. As such, the federal government launched a campaign to bring democracy and freedom to the international community. With regards to foreign policy in the Middle East, this change meant the deposition of many of those that had helped the US fight the Cold War. In the end, the enemies that the US has made as a result of its foreign policy have only served as the basis to hurt the United States and its ability to ensure America's national interest.

With the realization that the US government has pursued a negative path of foreign policy development in the years since the Cold War, there is a clear impetus to examine this period of time in history. To this end, this investigation considers how US policy in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has hindered the advancement of America's national interest. Through a careful consideration of American foreign policy in the Middle East since the Cold War, it will be possible to demonstrate that because the US government has served only its selfish interests, it has promulgated an outpouring of hatred and animosity toward the United States. Further, by examining what has been written about post-Cold War foreign policy in the Middle East, it will be possible to demonstrate that unless the US government changes its policy toward the Middle East, the best interests of the American people will never be served.

Post-Cold War Policies in the Middle East

The Case of Saudi Arabia

Considering first the post-Cold War policies pursued by the United States after the fall of communism, a review of this time period-i.e. approximately 1990 to the present-reveals that the foreign policy objectives that have been undertaken by the US in the Middle East are markedly different than those pursued during the Cold War. As noted by Bowman (2005) current US foreign policy in the Middle East is aimed at creating and implementing democratic governments. Bowman goes on to argue that this push toward democracy is one that is notably different than the one followed by the US during the Cold War. As noted by Bowman, "For almost five decades, US policy in the Middle East operated on the assumption that democracy there would jeopardize US political and economic interests" (p. 91). With this in mind, the US has cohesively followed a pathway for the democratic development of all countries in the Middle East.

Despite the fact that the US has come to realize the importance of establishing democracies in the Middle East, Bowman goes on to argue that the US has not uniformly developed and established foreign policy to allow for the simultaneous democratic development of all nations. To illustrate this point, Bowman utilizes the case of Saudi Arabia. As noted by Bowman:

Since the formal beginning of US-Saudi relations in 1933, Saudi Arabia increasingly represented one of America's most important allies and simultaneously one of the most oppressive authoritarian regimes in the world. The Saudi regime has epitomized the antithesis of American idealist values, yet its oil reserves and strategic location have made it immeasurably important to the United States and to the world (p. 93-4).

Because of the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia, Bowman contends that the US has been willing to extend certain privileges to the country and its rules; privileges that the US has not been willing to expand to other nations in the Middle East.

The case of Saudi Arabia is unique because it demonstrates the complexity of foreign policy development in the Middle East. Even though the United States is clearly seeking the development of democratic governments in the region, the federal government has been more tolerant of certain countries. This issue is one of paramount concern in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. Bowman argues that even though Saudi Arabia has been identified as harboring the terrorists before their attack, no action has been taken toward the Saudi government. As such, the foreign policies being pursued by the US in the case are clearly placing the US in jeopardy.

The Case of Afghanistan

While the case of Saudi Arabia represents only one problem in the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East, author authors looking at US foreign policy in this region have noted other significant problems. Specifically, scholars have noted the threat posed by Osama bin Laden. Researchers examining the history of Osama bin Laden note that in the 1980s, bin Laden set up training camps in Afghanistan in order to train Arab soldiers to fight against the Russian invasion. In an effort to improve the status quo, the United States sent arms and supplies to bin Laden to help him train the group that would become known as al-Qaeda. Because of the efforts of bin Laden, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, having lost more than 50,000 soldiers (The Soviet-Afghan..., 2005).

The relationship that had been developed between the US and Osama bin Laden made bin Laden a hero among his friends and family members in Saudi Arabia. In spite of this relationship however, bin Laden quickly became an enemy of the US when he outwardly opposed US occupation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Believing that the US had invaded the Muslim's Holy Land, bin Laden collected his troops and resources and returned to Afghanistan to plot against the United States. This plot was deemed successful when on September 11, 2001 bin Laden successfully carried out the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil (The Soviet-Afghan..., 2005).

Even though the threats of bin Laden in the years following the first Gulf War appeared to be nothing more than angry rhetoric, scholars examining the period of time from the first Gulf War to the terrorist attacks argue that bin Laden posed a significant threat to the US because of his ability to influence millions of Muslim followers (Lesch, 2002). Lesch (2002) observes that by 1996, "Bin Laden began to threaten to transform the conflict into a struggle between the Muslim world and the Untied States" (p. 86). In spite of the notable threat that bin Laden posed to both the United States and the international community as a whole, the US did not respond by initiating polices that would democratize Afghanistan and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. The central question that arises in this case is "Why?"

Critically reviewing what has been written about US foreign policy in Afghanistan since the Cold War, it becomes evident that the American government has not waged a full scale attack on the country for a number of pertinent reasons. Hartman (2002) argues that the decision of the United States to arm and train Islamic fundamentalists during the Cold War has served as the basis for the creation of a monster. While the US believed that it was in its best interest to stop the Russians from controlling Afghanistan, the choice made by the US is one that now has significant consequences for the US. According to Hartman, the US has financed the world's most deadly army. As such, the US faces a formidable threat when it comes to actively defeating Osama bin Laden and his Islamic soldiers.

In addition to the fact that the US has created a formidable foe-one that is responsible for killing more than 50,000 Soviet troops during the 1980s-Hartman also argues that Afghanistan represents a geopolitically sensitive nation. Harman argues that the principle reason for the US to depose Soviet rule in Afghanistan during the Cold War was to ensure the capitalist interests of the United States. By ensuring access to Middle Easter oil reserves, the United States would be able to protect its economic development. Even though Afghanistan is not an oil-rich nation, it is the gateway for the West into the oil rich nation of Saudi Arabia. Thus, full scale war in Afghanistan would markedly limit the ability of the United States to keep a firm grip on both Middle Eastern oil reserves and the domestic and international economy.

Much like the US foreign policy that has developed in Saudi Arabia, it is clear that the US foreign policy that has been undertaken in Afghanistan is notably incongruous with the US efforts to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East. Because of the geopolitical position of Afghanistan, the US is unwilling to wage a full scale war in the country. This coupled with the fact that American support of bin Laden and al-Qaeda during the 1980s has fostered the development of one of the world's most deadly armies, will make it difficult for the United States to effectively control Afghanistan and bring the country under democratic rule. However, because of the inability of the US to bring Afghanistan under democratic rule, the al-Qaeda network continues to grow and thrive, posing a significant threat to both the United States and the international community as a whole.

The Case of Iraq

Finally, no investigation of current US policy in the Middle East could be undertaken wihout some consideration for the country of Iraq. When one looks at the overall response of the US with respect to Iraq, it is evident that the US is indeed pursuing a policy that would bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. Shuja (2004) in his analysis of the decision of the US to engage in preemptive war with the US argues that the decision made by President Bush was predicated on the September 11th terrorist attacks and the implications for the proliferation of terrorism in the international community. In short, Shuja argues that the US altruistically undertook war with Iraq in the belief that the spread of democracy would indeed reduce the global threat of terrorism.

Although Shuja strongly defends the decision of the Bush Administration to engage in war in Iraq, other researchers examining US foreign policy in Iraq note that since the end of the Cold War, the US has failed to effectively establish any cohesive foreign policy in Iraq. Specifically, Zunes (2001) makes the following observation: "Ten years after the Gulf War, U.S. policy toward Iraq continues to suffer from an over-reliance on military solutions, an abuse of the United Nations and international law, and a disregard for the human suffering resulting from the policy" (p. 69). What this effectively suggests is that the US has bee unable to secure its stronghold on Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. As such, the US, with few other options for controlling the development of the Middle East chose to engage in war with Iraq.

When the case of Iraq is compared with the case of Afghanistan, it is evident that Iraq was chosen for war not only because of its geopolitical location, but also because of the fact that the US felt that it could more easily control the country. When the war in Iraq began, a swift victory-similar to that seen in the first Gulf War-was expected. As such, the US believed that it would be able to secure a quick victory in Iraq, establish a democracy in the country and ensure US hegemonic control of the Middle East. Even though Afghanistan posed a more notable risk to international security in the post-Cold War era, Iraq was chosen because the US government saw the country as a feebler target.

Impact of US Foreign Policy

Overall, the research presented in this investigation clearly demonstrates that the US has pursued uneven development of democracy in the Middle East. Even though the US government continues to argue that US foreign policy in the Middle East is motivated by the desire to spread democracy, prevent the evolution of terrorism and ensure the safety of the international community, the specific actions taken by the US with respect to individual countries in the Middle East suggests that the US is not pursuing these altruistic goals. Rather the foreign policy undertaken by the US in the Middle East seems to suggest a larger tend toward America's selfish protection of its own economic interests. Not surprisingly, many other nations in the international community have made this observation.

Critically reviewing the response of the international community to the foreign policy objectives undertaken by the United States, it becomes evident that, overall, the international community does not think very highly of the US. Tatum (2003) in his examination of the current sentiment of the international community toward the United States makes the following observations:

Since 9/11 - America's response to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the ongoing ugliness throughout the world about what most foreigners believe to be America's unwarranted defense of Israel while ignoring all of Africa and much of the rest of the world - what would seem to be a festering of hate for all things American has grown...into an avalanche of undisguised meanness against America, Americans and any foreign policy that the United States wishes to offer the world (p. 12).

Tatum goes on to argue that this general hatred of the US has erupted into overt hostility toward the United States and institutions that have been identified as traditionally American.

Other scholars examining the international community's response to the United States after the September 11th terrorist attacks have noted that, for the most part, developing nations in both Asia and South America were not supportive of America's decision to engage in war in either Afghanistan or Iraq (Lichterman and Burroughs, 2004). What this effectively suggests is that even though the United States had witnessed its most devastating terrorist attack on US soil, many countries in the international community did not believe that the US should seek retaliation for the attacks. This despite the realization that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network were to blame for the deaths of more than 3,000 innocent Americans. When placed in this perspective, the true hatred of the international community toward the United States becomes notably apparent.

Finally, researchers examining the hatred of the international community toward the US have noted that as a result of anti-American sentiment toward the US, institutions seen as American are being terrorized as a result of their association with the US. Specifically, anti-American demonstrators have been bombing McDonald's restaurants in various parts of the international community (Fires of..., 2002). According to this author in 2002, "Around the world, McDonald's restaurants have been burning. One was torched in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Nov. 20. Another blew up in Moscow on Oct.19, while less than a month before, a small bomb ripped through a franchise in a suburb of Beirut" (p. A07). This author goes on to further note that in 2001, a pipe bomb was detonated at a McDonald's in China. Several months later a McDonald's in Istanbul was also bombed.

The recent rash of bombing against McDonald's appears to be representative of the growing hatred of the US in the international community. With no other outlet for their frustrations, anti-American demonstrators have taken to destroying symbols of the West that mark American economic supremacy in foreign countries. "...The bombings have more than an immediate economic impact. They're symbolic of a larger rejection of Americana, the culmination of separate strains of opposition that all spell trouble for U.S. firms that depend on relentless expansion" (p. A07). As such, the decision to engage in the bombing of American institutions serves not only as a means to disrupt American capitalism, but also as a means to send a clear message against the political and economic hegemony of the United States. Although innocent people have been killed in these bombings, the importance of the message is frighteningly clear.

Conclusion

Synthesizing all of the information that has been presented in this investigation, it is evident that the foreign policy pursued by the United States in the post-Cold War era is one that has, and continues to have, a negative impact on the interests of the American people. Not only has the US government chosen to pursue a policy of democracy and freedom that is uneven, it has also blatantly asserted its power in weaker countries, while ignoring the global threat posed by others-i.e. Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. As a direct result of the policies pursued by the US in the Middle East, anti-American sentiment and outright hatred for the United States are now proliferating in the international community. This proliferation of hate had grown so extensively that the US now faces threats to the stability of companies and organizations that are commonly associated with American values-i.e. McDonald's.

When the data is summarized overall, it is evident that the US government has done relatively little to ensure and protect the interests of American citizens. Because of the policies pursued by the federal government, US citizens face overt hatred when traveling abroad. In addition, US citizens now face the pervasive threat of terrorism occurring on American soil. Clearly, the September 11th terrorist attacks carried out by Osama bin Laden were a direct reflection of the anger and hatred that the Middle East has developed toward the United States. As this hatred continues to grow in the international community, one can only wonder what will happen to US citizens.

In the end, the policies pursued by the US government in the Middle East have placed US citizens in a precarious position. Until the US is able to demonstrate that is has more interest in the well being of the international community-i.e. as opposed to pursuing its own economic interests-the US will continue to face an outpouring of hatred. Unfortunately, this situation is one that could have been avoided. Clearly, foreign policy makers have not learned from the mistakes of the past. As such, US citizens will continue to face threats to their safety and security.

References

Bowman, B.L. (2005). Realism and idealism: US policy toward Saudi Arabia, from the Cold War to today. Parameters: US Army War College, 35(4), 91-105.

Fires of anti-American burn McDonald's. (2002, December 18). Toronto Star, News, A07.

Hartman, A. (2002). The red template: US policy in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 467-489.

Lesch, A.M. (2002). Osama bin Laden: Embedded in the Middle East crises. Middle East Policy, 9(2), 82-91.

Lichterman, A., & Burroughs, J. (2004). You don't get the war you want. Peace Review, 16(3), 257-262.

The Soviet-Afghan War. (2005). Current Events, 105(11), 2.

Shuja, S. (2004). The Bush doctrine and the emerging new world order. National Observer, 59, 30-40.

Tatum, W.A. (2003). Hate bombs stalking America. New York Amsterdam News, 94(27), 12.

Zunes, S. (2001). Foreign policy by catharsis: The failure of US policy toward Iraq. Arab Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 69-87.