Download Michael Samuels 12/1/11 Essay 2 Game Theory and Democracy A

Michael Samuels
12/1/11
Essay 2
Game Theory and Democracy
A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
As the effects of the 2008 financial crisis linger in the American economy, potential
contagion from the European sovereign debt crisis places America in a fragile economic state,
teetering on the brink of a double dip recession. Because the health of the economy and public
support for politicians are so intertwined, presidential candidates seem to be myopically focused
on the economy with the imminent 2012 presidential elections. While the economic climate is
undoubtedly both interesting and important, the geopolitical climate is also both interesting and
important, which is why it would be judicious for politicians to pay attention to it as well.
Moreover, while the economic environment unquestionably has immediate ramifications for the
United States, the ever-changing geopolitical environment has significant implications for the
United States in the long run. In the geopolitical sphere, fundamental changes in global power
dynamics have been overshadowed by the economic volatility; however, just because they are
not as readily apparent in the news headlines worldwide does not mean that they are not equally
as significant, and perhaps even more significant, than continued economic woes. The
international community is in a transition phase from a unipolar world led by a hegemon in the
United States to a multipolar world with many hegemons. The days of unrivaled supremacy by
the United States are dwindling at best and have been gone for years now at worst. And in a very
Darwinian way, how the United States adapts to these geopolitical changes will determine how
successful it is at maintaining a dominant position globally in the future. If the United States
does not take advantage of this opportune time to strategically position itself in what will be a
more defined multipolar world, it is quite possible that future efforts might be too little too late.
After all, dominance in the world is a zero sum game, and one country’s dominance necessarily
implies another country’s lack thereof. The United States’ relative percentage of control is
diminishing, but how much the United States controls in the future and to what extent it controls
certain aspects of geopolitics in the future are dictated by its present policies. As is true with any
situation, in order to best understand the present and its ramifications for the future, it is
imperative to first understand the past and its influence on the present. Furthermore,
understanding why certain realities exist is equally important as identifying that they do exist.
To succinctly put it, the United States is a military superpower that has long prided itself
on the strength of its formidable armed forces and by the power it derives form flexing the
muscles of its military might. From the very origin of the United States, one of the most
fundamental notions of being American has been the ability to successfully defeat any opposition
who stands in the way of the inalienable rights that are the foundation of American democracy.
In the Revolutionary War, we liberated ourselves from the tyranny of the British monarch whose
rule infringed upon our inalienable rights. After gaining independence and establishing our
nation, economic prosperity coupled with the intrinsic value of what is now considered to be
Western ideology made the United States feel superior as a moral authority with staunch support
for its convictions. The United States became a force to be reckoned with on the international
stage economically, politically, and militarily, which solidified its own perception of global
importance. Power combined with a fervent moral conviction has historically been used as a
justification to disseminate one’s views at all cost, and in that regard, the United States has
followed in the footsteps of the great powers throughout antiquity. At the height of its empire,
the United States was victorious in both World War I and World War II, which established its
geopolitical dominance and global hegemony. Power, moral conviction, and military success are
the perfect storm of conditions for a foreign policy with no bounds, and with this invincible and
superior mentality, the United States entered the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet
Union, two diametrically opposed superpowers, engaged in an ideological warfare for decades to
ultimately determine which ideology was better. The United States, once again, proved to be
triumphant, and as the world’s undisputed leader, the United States naively thought that it could
do no wrong. While the United States’ foreign policy measures are largely responsible for its rise
to the top and its position as an unrivaled hegemon after the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, the same overly-ideological foreign policy measures that were an attempt to export
Western, liberal principles to the world are responsible for our declining political capital and
declining geopolitical clout in the aftermath of the Cold War. The United States’ superior status
as a superpower became so entrenched in our psyche that we came to believe that it was not only
a possibility to expand our sphere of influence, but also a responsibility to help inferior countries
throughout the world who had yet to see the light of Western liberalism. As a result, the United
States’ self-imposed burden of the duty to help the world as a hegemon is viewed as altruistic in
the internal political sphere. However, externally, it is viewed as both self-interested and as an
infringement upon other country’s inalienable right to sovereignty. Because the United States
was founded on the right to be liberated from oppressive tyrants who violated inalienable rights,
the United States is considered to be hypocritical, as it is now the oppressor in terms of
infringing upon inalienable rights. Walking the fine line between nation-building and promoting
Western democratic principles and overstepping its bounds in terms of sovereignty most aptly
characterizes United States foreign policy after the Cold War era, and it seems as if the United
States has crossed the line and overstepped its bounds, which has resulted in backlash from the
international community that has grown increasingly disillusioned with the United States. Our
interventionist foreign policy initiatives are the root cause of anti-United States sentiment
abroad, and this sentiment from ostracized groups and regions has already adversely affected the
United States in multiple ways. Most notably, the United States has alienated the Middle East by
meddling in the region with its excessive intervention, and it would be shrewd for politicians to
reevaluate our foreign policy in the region before we dig our own geopolitical grave. Now that
the United States’ history and the derivations of its mentality regarding global geopolitics are
better understood, it is vital to understand the history of our foreign policy in the Middle East
specifically and how it has affected the present dynamics between the United States and the Arab
world.
Primarily, the United States’ continued support of Israel since its inception in 1948 has
put a great strain on our relationship with the predominantly Muslim Middle East that
sympathizes with the Palestinians Despite the fact that it is generally the scapegoat for our
problems with the Arab World, the extent of our alienation of the Middle East is not limited to
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and other forms of alienation make the situation even more
contentious. Hypocritical forms of intervention have exacerbated an already strained
relationship. There are myriad forms of such hypocrisy, but one particular period of intervention
in the Middle East is illustrative enough of hypocritical meddling and excessive intervention. In
1953, the United States led a coup of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran,
Mohammed Mossadegh, for nationalizing the oil industry. His successor and the royal monarch,
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, effectively became a dictator but was supported by the United
States because of economic benefits. In 1979 when the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, the
United States then supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 to install a more pro-American
leader. The United States supplied the bellicose Iraqi tyrant and our future nemesis, Saddam
Hussein, with chemical and biological weapons to unsuccessfully fight Iran from 1980 until
1988. Shortly thereafter in 1990, the United States went to war with Iraq for invading Kuwait.
And since the Gulf War, the United States tried to rid Iraq of the oppressive dictator that it
supported for the previous decade when it was in our best interest. This intervention and
hypocrisy has fueled the large and growing flame for anti-American sentiment in the Middle East
and is one of the root causes of terrorism. After the Gulf War, the United States continued its
hypocritical foreign policy in the Middle East and is continually blamed for excessive
intervention to secure stable oil prices that fuel the American economy. In terms of hypocrisy,
the United States has supported authoritarian leaders in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt because
they are supportive of American needs in the Middle East, and it has infringed upon Iraq and
Afghanistan’s inalienable right to sovereignty for democratization and nation-building. The 2001
invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of
9/11 were unilateral interventions that have drastically lowered our standing with the Middle
East and the international community at large. Moreover, they are often considered to be part of
the phenomenon of imperial overstretch, so as to insinuate that the United States is too involved
in too many places without sufficient resources. Because of the heightened resentment that has
arisen from the war-hawkish invasions during George Bush’s tenure and our continued
involvement in the region, now is a very critical time to reconsider our position in terms of
foreign policy with the Middle East. A cost benefit analysis of our policies will make it overtly
clear that a complete change is necessary from the neoconservative policies of George Bush.
Continued improvement from President Obama’s step in the right direction is the path towards
foreign policy in a multipolar world.
On the cost side of the analysis, the backlash from perceived hypocrisy, excessive
intervention, and violations of sovereignty is obviously enormously detrimental to United States
diplomacy. Unfortunately, however, the costs transcend the defamation of our public image.
Terrorism is the physical manifestation of this backlash and anti-American sentiment because of
excessive intervention. Continued intervention will inevitably lead to continued and increased
terrorism. Furthermore, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, so whatever
political or economic benefits that are garnered form a successful invasion are irrelevant due to
the unsuccessful nature of both invasions. In Afghanistan, a top down effort to install a corrupt
central government will never create a sustainable democracy in a historically decentralized
country. In Iraq, no democratic government can successfully govern a county with the sectarian
rift between the two vehemently opposed religious sects that Iraq has. And generally speaking,
there is an inherent disconnect between Western, liberal traditions and the established and
engrained Middle Eastern political culture. Attempts to spark Westernization from the
progressive movement ignite the regressive movement to become more radical, and the clash
creates instability that inhibits the creation of a strong nation-state. And in a very literal sense of
the word cost, the monetary costs of the wars are very taxing on a debt-burdened country that is
trying to get its fiscal house in order.
On the benefits side of the equation, the only real benefit is the potential for democratic
states and allies in the Middle East. Despite the fact that this is an excessively lofty and elusive
hope, even if quazi-democratic states emerge in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not necessarily a
benefit for the United States. Many people often mistakenly equate democratic governments with
Western principles and assume that democratization benefits the United States. In the West Bank
of Israel, Hamas was democratically elected. Needless to say, Hamas is the polar opposite of a
benefit for the United States and its allies. Furthermore, Pakistan is a democracy that is certainly
not the paragon of good allies that benefit the United States. The Pakistani government has
continually failed to help our regional interests and has arguably worked against our regional
interests by directly or indirectly helping our enemies. So, if the only benefit is the outside
chance of the formation of illiberal democracies that likely won’t even be beneficial allies and if
the costs include declining political capital, terrorism, and indebtedness, it might be worth
reconsidering our policies.
President Obama has started the transition to reduced involvement in the region, while
simultaneously trying to balance not relinquishing control over strategic strongholds and not
being perceived as a poor ally to sovereign governments in Afghanistan and Iraq that it has
promised to support. Generally speaking, foreign policy can be viewed through the dichotomous
lens of two political philosophies: crusaders and pragmatists. Crusaders are overly-ideological
politicians who try to export what they consider to be a superior ideology at all costs. Pragmatists
know the perils of a fervent allegiance to ideology and understand that foreign policy measures
have repercussions. In a geopolitical period of multipolarity where the United States is not a
dominant hegemon, understanding the ramifications of acting like a superior hegemon is of
paramount importance. And being pragmatic will be the key to survival in a world of multiple
superpowers. Concessions at the right times and strategic positioning are vital. The first
pragmatic step is restoring our tarnished image with the international community by
implementing foreign policy measures that are not the measures of a unilateral hegemon.
Respecting sovereignty and other ideologies is an invaluable skill in a world with many
dominant players. The United States’ hegemonic foreign policy is largely defined by its presence
in the Middle East, so ending intervention and hypocrisy is the first step in a long, uphill battle to
regain credibility and legitimacy. So, in addition to devising plans to fix the economy, politicians
in the 2012 election might want to promote strategies to adapt to the changing geopolitical
climate in order to ensure that the next crisis for America is not a geopolitical one.
(An updated version of this essay will be posted by Saturday at noon for those who are
interested in using it for the final)