An essay on American "foreign affairs" should, but rarely does, begin with the observation that our foreign affairs are someone else's domestic affairs. This observation should evoke at least two questions, "How do we like it when someone else pokes around in our domestic affairs?" and "what the heck does some outsider know about our domestic affairs anyway?"
It is hard to pick a better example of the conundrum framed by this exchange than our involvement in the Middle East, starting (though it goes way back) with our two invasions of Iraq. Bush One was wise enough to make his strike for a limited and clear objective: getting Saddam Hussein, Iraq's ruler, out of neighboring Kuwait. Then we skipped out. Bush Two: not so smart.
Iraqi politics are more complicated than Chicago's. To begin with, Iraq, whose crazy borders were established for the convenience of European imperial powers, is profoundly divided between Shia and Sunni branches of Islam. The Protestant-Catholic split of the late Middle Ages is a rough equivalent. In this climate, one killing another is no big deal. Iraq remains an area of deeply committed faith(s), again quite comparable to Europe's Middle Ages and, maybe still, to very small pockets of America today. This faith features a God, in various forms, as a lively actor in everyday affairs, possessed of strong opinions that do not have to conform to secular rationality.
In this kind of mental environment, it is entirely normal for many people to think that God wants us to move quickly with whatever force required or consequences, to establish a caliphate, a wonderful country, "a city on a hill," ruled exclusively under God's will as infallibly interpreted by God's chosen prophets. Some Christian texts are roughly analogous with a Second Coming just around the corner, including a blood bath in which everyone you justly disagree with is destroyed and sent to hell for eternity.
It is a minority vision here. Now think of a country in which most people are firmly convinced and, like our equivalent minority, believe everyone who does not share their particular faith is on the list for hell anyway.
That's just the beginning of a Middle Eastern foreign policy analysis. To bypass this analysis is like saying Chicago is just about Democrats vs. Republicans.
Iraqi peoples are also organized around tribal affiliations, ethnic background, sects and subsects. How about family relationships when nobody leaves the community for generations? And, oh yes, you might have noticed people segregate depending on their relationship to the economy. All of these divisions can sustain great passion.
Now, into this complex, one particular economic, religious, sectarian, (etc.) group invites a foreign army of an entirely different background to come in to help them deal with age-old enemies. Sort of like old boss Mayor Daley inviting in an armed Islamic group to help eliminate Republican nonsense. What kind of reception can these 20,000 new, alien boots-on-the-ground expect and what can they realistically expect to accomplish -- at what cost?
Let's estimate only 10 billion in dollars. Lives? Perhaps only 1 percent, just 200 deaths given the great body armor of the modern army; maybe just two to four new names on the plaques on the Anchorage Park Strip Memorial Wall. They were boys of such promise, but they gave their lives for their country. But injuries, almost ten times the death rate even under favorable combat circumstances, will add up to maybe 2,000 Americans seriously maimed, with 100 or so coming to Anchorage V.A. hospitals as regular guests.
One other factor, at least, to consider: What alternative uses are there for $10 billion to advance foreign policy objectives in that region? For example, how about restoring the national agricultural base, most of it badly damaged by prior and contemporary wars? As a sidebar, drop in $100 million to feed the hungry. Plenty of them. Consider doing this under the authority of the United Nations so the program is not so visibly motivated by selfish, national interest. Which approach do you think is a more effective foreign policy?
As a White House Fellow and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, John Havelock visited Japan, the Philippines, the United Nations in New York City, as well as Rome, Taiwan, and Vietnam in the late 1960s before returning home to Alaska.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.