OF late, the media has been busy with the United States' retreat from the Middle East. According to The Wall Street Journal, the withdrawal of its air defence systems and troops operating them began in early June.
Already, think tanks in the United States are on overdrive calling on President Joe Biden's administration to reverse the retreat. Leading the alarm is the Washington-based Atlantic Council.
One of its recent reports lays out a very simplistic argument: US withdrawal from the region will not serve US interests. Consider three. Start with the promotion of "value-based" national interest, a broad term that appears to include democracy and human rights.
Buried deep in the "value-based" national interest is American corporate interests. It seems that the Atlantic Council is very much at peace with promoting democracy by the barrel of the gun than ballots. Let's be blunt. It is neither the business of the military nor the US government to force American values down the throat of others.
What is good for the Americans need not necessarily be good for the Middle Easterners. Or for that matter, the rest of the world. Besides, isn't the US learning how to be a democratic country? Ditto for human rights. How could a country whose uniformed men are being investigated for war crimes by the International Criminal Court tutor the Middle East on human rights? We tell the US this: do not try to teach others what you are bad at.
Next, an asinine and farcical argument: military presence in the Middle East is needed to ensure that oil continues to be extracted and shipped around the world. Shouldn't, say, Saudi Arabia, have the right to produce its oil or keep it in the ground for as long as it wants? Does a sovereign nation need the nod of Washington or the presence of its armed forces to manage its natural resources? Let's turn the Atlantic Council's argument around on its head. What would Biden say if Beijing insists on stationing its People's Liberation Army on American soil to ensure continued energy supply to China?
Finally, the inescapable China argument: US presence in the Middle East is needed to ensure Beijing doesn't fill the void. This is a dead horse of an argument. Flogging it is of no good to anyone.
China will face the same issues as the US is facing if it were to station its troops there. Like the US, China has limited resources — money, manpower and materials. These are better deployed at home than in far away places. We should not be fooled by thinking that 1.4 billion people are an endless source of manpower. Granted, China has global ambitions. So does Russia.
Developing national interest strategies by framing issues in this manner will only hurt the US in men and money. The US should learn from history, especially from the blunders of others. The 19th century's "Great Game" between Britain and Russia was a tale of fear taken to the limits of obsession. Not unlike America's fear of China, and to a lesser extent, its fear of Russia, today. Nations which are obsessed with influence or control are always authors of their own destruction. Afghanistan taught the great gamers an unforgettable lesson: influence by force never works. Britain and Russia retreated from Afghanistan in shame. So did the US. Biden mustn't replicate this in the Middle East.