Not being at war anywhere on the planet, is so unusual for America, you would think that everyone in the country feels like waking up one morning in a hospital bed and being told: You are completely cured now, America. You can go home.
But is this what America is told that will
keep it out of the diplomatic hospital?
We can check where things stand in America by
consulting the article that came under the title: “The Taiwan Triangle,” and
the subtitle: “To maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait, US policy will need to
adjust to deal with a more capable and assertive China.” It was written by
Richard Haass, and published on October 18, 2021 on the website of the Council
on Foreign Relations.
Here, in condensed form, is Richard Haass’s
view of the situation:
“Attempts to treat
Taiwan as a solvable problem will result in a conflict that will leave the US,
Taiwan and China much worse off. The reason is that there is no possible
outcome that would be universally acceptable. US-China relations have
deteriorated in recent years, but not because of Taiwan. There is speculation
that Chinese President Xi Jinping is contemplating the use of force to absorb
Taiwan. Allowing China to coerce or absorb Taiwan would end the US alliance
system in Asia. Governments would defer to China or become more autonomous,
which could lead to conventional military and nuclear proliferation. But
recognizing Taiwan’s independence in the face of mainland opposition would
result in a rupture in US-Chinese relations. To avoid war and maintain a
working relationship with China, the US does not have a free hand with Taiwan.
What is needed are policy changes. That includes enhancing US military
capabilities in the region, building closer defense integration with Japan and
Australia, and strengthening Taiwan’s defense capacities”.
Do you detect, in that account, the kind of
poison that sent America to hospital on previous occasions? The answer is yes.
It was the use of baseless speculation as a foundation upon which to construct
a comprehensive and definitive foreign policy, putting the military at the
center of it.
Here is the current fabricated speculation
that might lead to a repeat of the old policies: “There is speculation that Chinese President Xi Jinping is contemplating
the use of force to absorb Taiwan.” And here is the policy that might result, “What
is needed includes enhancing US military capabilities in the region, building
closer defense integration with Japan and Australia, and strengthening Taiwan’s
defense capacities”.
As Ronald Reagan would say: “Here we go
again.” In fact, this has been the sad story of how America was convinced to
get into war after war after war since the Second World War. Aside from sending
a massive military taskforce into a foreign country to arrest a drug trafficker
or some such adventure where America scored what looks like a small success,
all other adventures resulted in horrific losses of lives and treasure for
America, as well as immeasurable calamities to millions of people almost
everywhere in the world. It was the sort of behavior that will remain
unforgivable as well as unforgettable blots on America’s historical record.
But is there someone in America who is
willing to put together a foreign policy that avoids repeating the mistakes of
the past, and keep America out of the diplomatic hospital for good? The answer
is, yes.
That policy is spelled out in an article which
came under the title: “US Should Get Out of the Way of Middle East
Cooperation,” and the subtitle: “The prevailing doomsday thought is that US
disengagement from the Middle East will create a power vacuum that the regional
powers will move to violently fill. The immediate behavior of those in question
provides evidence to the contrary.” It was written by Scott McCann, and
published on October 20, 2021 in The National Interest.
You’ll find that the first thing, which Scott
McCann proposes, is a simple but powerful idea. It goes like this: “Uncertainty
about US commitment to the Middle East may be the best strategy for achieving
regional peace and stability.” The suggestion here is that the intrusion of the
United States into the affairs of the region has been the major factor that
negated the development of peace and stability in the Middle East during the
last seven decades. Here, in condensed form, is what else Scott McCann has said:
“Saudi Arabia and Iran
provide clues to regional behavior in the absence of US presence. The two met
for the first time to ease tensions between them. Numerous rounds of meetings
have occurred since. Iran’s Foreign Minister met with other Middle East and
North African foreign ministers and senior delegates. Speculation was that
Saudi Arabia opposed the Iran nuclear deal to deny the US and Iran an avenue
for détente. With the US now out of the picture, the kingdom has chosen to
engage diplomatically with its rival and support a solution that prevents a
nuclear arms race in the region. Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq held discussions. UAE
and Turkey met to improve their bitter relationship. Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE agreed to end their blockade of Qatar. When presented with
a reality that their fights may occur without guarantee of US weapons or
support, the region has chosen diplomacy. Despite the narrative that the US
presence in the region promotes security and stability, it appears that US
military support and arms sales only encourage fighting”.
Only once did America do the right thing
intervening in the Middle East. It happened when America was invited by the Arab
League to help it evict Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait when he invaded that
country.
The moral of the story is that the Arabs and not the Jews, represent the voice of peace and stability in the Middle East.