Middle East Affairs: Is Interventionism the True Answer?

For years, the left and the right have debated the role the United States should play in the Middle East. The war hawks of Congress have insisted on expanding military operations in various countries over the past three decades, while pacifists view peaceful diplomacy as the only solution to the Middle East’s complex problems. The true starting point of this debate actually goes back to the 1930s, however, when FDR began to transition the United States from an isolationist nation to an internationalist, interventionist country in order to involve itself in World War II. For years after FDR’s presidency, we have witnessed the United States maintain this very policy of intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and many other nations. Yet, the foreign policy discussion about the Middle East has centered mostly around the intent of various politicians and groups, not the impact of past decisions. Of course, the majority of politicians and political groups retain good intentions and would like to see peace in the Middle East, but no one has taken the necessary steps to make that dream a reality.

One of the biggest campaign promises from various candidates in the last few Presidential election cycles has been to withdraw US forces out of Syria. For years, I was in shock that no politician could fulfill that promise as it appeared easy to simply order a withdrawal of forces. When viewed from a historical context, though, you realize that pulling out US forces in a country would result in a victory for authoritarian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Such a move would imply a complete reversal in the interventionist American foreign policy that we have relied on for 80 years.

Yet our internationalist policy was designed specifically for Europe, not the Middle East. Nonetheless, we blindly apply WWII-era ideas to modern warfare in a region with different religious sects, dysfunctional democracies and dictatorships, and guerilla militias. When we intervened in Vietnam, we lost. When we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East witnessed the rise of militant groups like ISIS and the replacement of bad leaders with even worse ones.

So as Putin and Assad back the last rebel stronghold of Idlib into a corner this week by agreeing to a ceasefire with the expectation that all rebel forces remove themselves from the city within one month, it is the United States’s time to step away. We need to come to terms with the fact that not all problems can be fixed with guns. We have tried to rush solving a large conflict in the Middle East, costing us money and thousands of lives. Even if we do not see immediate results, we need to start removing ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs if not to win, but to save ourselves and see if a more isolationist policy works in today’s world. That is not to say the United States should maintain that type of policy in the rest of the world. It is only to see whether we can better help civilians in nations like Syria by letting the lesser of the evils win.