Debating the Long War

Gary Schmitt sets after Andrew Bacevich:

However, the larger point is that Bacevich and other conservative critics, like George Will, are standing on unsound ground when they argue that the transformative goal of the Long War is utopian. It might be long and it might be difficult but, if anything, the evidence so far suggests that the establishment of decent democratic regimes is possible in all kinds of regions and in countries with diverse cultural histories. That hardly means that failure in the Long War isn’t possible; but to hear Bacevich and others tell it, is inevitable.

I think this fundamentally misreads what the so-called long war is about. The circumstance America confronts today vis-a-vis the Arab world is completely different than the one the U.S. faced vis-a-vis the captive nations of the Soviet Empire. Then, the U.S. stood for democracy and against the tyranny imposed by the Soviet Union. Today, the U.S. stands with the oppressors in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. against their own citizens.

Perhaps Schmitt believes this is a mistake and that we should renounce our current Middle Eastern allies and embark on a truly radical program of restructuring our relationship with those autocracies. But I somehow doubt it. The long-war, as presently conceived by Schmitt and others, blithely overlooks the fact that America's real enemies are bubbling forth from the nations ostensibly allied with the United States (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). Instead, it focuses on old geopolitical hobbyhorses like Iran and before that, Iraq.

Not a utopian program, perhaps, but certainly not a wise one either.

[Hat tip: Justin Logan]

.