Energion Roundtable Question 11 -- Libya, the Middle East, and American Presence
We’re now within days
of the election, and a large storm (a literal one) has thrown a wrench into the
electoral politics. But that’s not the
question of the week posed by the editor of Energion Publications to our round table. This question focuses on Libya and the attack on the consulate.
One of the major news stories of the last
couple of weeks has been the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the
deaths of the ambassador and three other people there. In response, some have
suggested that America is portraying weakness in the Middle East (and
elsewhere) and that we need to maintain a strong military, or increase what we
now have, and take a stronger stand against regimes and terrorist groups that
oppose our policies and/or our interests.
As a Christian and an American, what do you think
our approach should be? How does your faith inform your answer to this question?
Regarding the consulate
attack, if I tried to deal with it directly I’d end up in the weeds dealing
with things I’m not competent to deal with.
Mistakes likely were made.
Hopefully they’ll get taken care of.
The deaths of the Ambassador and three aides was tragic, and their loss
is to be mourned, not politicized.
Instead of getting
entangled in that debate, I’d like to focus on the larger question of America’s
reputation and presence in the world, especially in relationship to the Middle
East. Until the 1890s, when the United
States got involved in war with Spain (Spanish American War) we were largely
focused on things at home (expanding grasp on the North American continent). War with Spain brought us new imperial
acquisitions, including the Philippines.
We took over Hawaii and other lands as well during this era. We would fight a bloody war in the
Philippines and engage in other battles around the world, but we still weren’t
a world power. World War I changed this
to some degree, though we turned isolationist in the immediate aftermath. So, it really wasn’t until World War II that
the United States truly became a world power. Although we have always believed ourselves to
be at least well-intentioned, history shows that there has often been a dark side
to our engagement on a world stage. We
have a tendency to be blind to our own faults, and in pursuit of our own
interests have ridden roughshod over the interests of others.
With regard to the
Middle East, our partnerships over the decades with dictators and strongmen
have undermined our image as a beacon of democracy. The oppressed in countries like Egypt and
Iran under the Shah wondered about the disconnect between our lofty words and
ideals and the realities of our support for less than savory folks (like
Mubarak).
In the current
political debate, Mitt Romney and his allies have called for a more robust
military presence. He suggests that if
we project military strength that no one will challenge us. Now, if this is true, then you’d think that
our having the largest military budget in the world, with our budget dwarfing
the next largest (China) would mean that all would be peaceful. As the Romans learned, having the best army
doesn’t always lead to peace. President
Obama has ended the war in Iraq, but has pursued military expansion in
Afghanistan and entered the Libyan conflict.
He has authorized a significant uptick in drone strikes and pursued the
killing of Osama bin Laden. You’d think
that this would suggest strength.
Unfortunately, despite
our military prowess peace remains elusive.
We can’t impose our will on every country. We marched into Baghdad in a matter of weeks,
but “pacifying the country” took years and even now isn’t complete. We defeated the Taliban in quick strides, but
Afghanistan is no more peaceful today than a decade ago. Libya is free of its dictator’s grasp, but a
stable nation remains on the horizon. We
could bomb Iran, but could we occupy it?
Do we want to? Vietnam should
have been a clue that military prowess isn’t enough, but we didn’t seem to
learn the lesson.
So what’s the
solution? I don’t think military
strength will do the job. Diplomacy has
a better chance, but diplomacy requires that we understand the nations we seek
to engage. It means understanding the complexity
that is Islam. Shia and Sunni have
significant differences. Arabs and
Persians and Turks and Kurds have their differences, that even religion doesn’t
always bridge. We need to understand
Islam. We need people who are trained in
Arabic and Farsi and Turkish languages. We
need to understand how our sense of our own selves can affect the way we’re
perceived by others.
We also need patience,
because democracy will have to evolve and it will evolve differently in the
Middle East than it does in America.
Consider even Israel. We speak of it as if it’s a Western democracy, but
is it? It’s commitment to being a Jewish
state means that one religion is privileged over all others. That’s not the American vision. It could be appropriate for that region – but
we don’t seem to understand what this means for Palestinians living in Israel
or under Israeli occupation.
Neither
President Obama nor Mitt Romney demonstrates the kind of awareness of these
realities that I'd like to see, though I believe that President Obama is better equipped than Mr. Romney
to handle these questions.
As
for how my faith contributes to these understandings, I will say that as a
follower of Jesus I’m compelled to pursue justice and peace in our world. I’m not a pacifist, but that doesn’t mean I’m
a military-first kind of person. Most
importantly, my own sense of vision is guided by Jesus’ call to love my
neighbor as I love myself. That is a posture that may lead to greater
peace, but I don’t think it will be the position of our government anytime
soon.
For
other responses see the posts by roundtable participants: Allan Bevere, Elgin Hushbeck, Joel Watts, and Arthur Sido.
Comments