COMMENT Rhetoric, US elections and the
Middle East By Ramzy Baroud
US elections are manifestly linked to the
Middle East, at least rhetorically. In practical
terms, however, US foreign policies in the region
are compelled by the Middle East's own dynamics
and America's own political climate, economic
woes, or ambitions. There is little historic
evidence that US foreign policy in the Arab world
has been guided by moral compulsion.
When
it comes to the Middle East - and much of the
world - it is mostly about style. The country's
two leading political parties have proven equally
to be interventionists. In the last two decades
Democrats seemed to lean more towards
unilateralism in foreign policy as in war, while
Republicans, as highlighted by the administration
of George W Bush, are much less worried about the
mere definitions of their conducts. The US
administration of Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
maintained a draconian siege on Iraq that
caused what former US
Attorney General Ramsey Clark described as
"genocide". Two years later, Bush chose the direct
war path, which simply rebranded the ongoing
"genocide". In both cases, hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqis died.
Despite the
warrior-like saber-rattling by former
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney about his
intentions to transform the Middle East to suit US
interests shall he be elected, few would take that
as more than despairing attempts at reaching out
to the most zealous members and groups of his
party, especially those who wield political
influence, media access and, of course, funds. The
pro-Israeli gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson is
referenced more than others, but there are many
others who demand such satisfactory rhetoric
before reaching out for their checkbooks.
Ultimately, "it's the economy, stupid" - a
phrase that reached legendary eminence after it
was coined for Bill Clinton as he unleashed his
successful presidential campaign in 1992. Once
again, the phrase is likely to be the determinant
factor come November 6.
American voters
will decide whether to extend President Barack
Obama's mandate by four more years or hand a more
impulsive, but equally opportunistic Romney the
fate of a country that has long crossed the line
of economic recession into uncharted territories
since the Great Depression in 1929. Romney, the
archetypal American elite with ample wealth,
lifestyle and language so detached from the
average American is doing his very best to exploit
Obama's failing to rescue the currently tattered,
and largely struggling economy. The recovery,
despite the hype, is still lacking at best. With a
large and growing deficit, and unrelenting
government borrowing, prospects for the future
remain dim.
"Economic growth has never
been weaker in a post-war recovery. Consumer
spending has never been so slack. Only once has
job growth been slower," wrote Paul Wiseman, in
the Huffington Post on August 15. These were his
thoughts on a thorough analysis produced by the
Associated Press, which concluded that
Obama-championed recovery since 2009 has been the
weakest of all 10 US recessions since World War
II.
The recession which dates back to
2007-2008, scaled back economic growth, caused
massive cuts and cost numerous jobs. Republicans
often wish to omit the eight-year legacy of George
W Bush and his colossal military expenditure. It
is in these instances that the Middle East becomes
a victim of omission, for heedless wars and an
unprecedented strain on the economy as a result of
them seem too trivial to mention. Listening to
Romney rambling about his prospected foreign
policy, one gets the impression that another war
is already in the making. Destination doesn't
matter, what matters is that Romney appears
strong, decisive and ready for a combat at a
moment's notice.
Democrats are focusing
their strategy on dividing their campaign messages
between the economy (placing the recovery within
generally upbeat news of positive economic
indicators) and other issues that matter to large
sectors of American society: health care,
abortion, immigration, civil rights questions, and
so on. With the economy continuing to follow an
impulsive line of logic, both parties are still
busy defining the very problems facing their
nation, leaving the task of devising real
solutions, if any, to a later date.
The
heavy sense of disappointment felt by many
Americans is unmistakable. Long gone is the 'hope
and change' fervor of Obama's last election
campaign. Democrats are no longer offering
sensational answers; it's mostly about braving the
difficult journey ahead. Republicans seem more
united by their own aversion of Obama than their
affinity to Romney. The latter's lack of
consistency, inability to form and staunchly
defend a cohesive vision, and clearly expressed
disinterest in 47 per cent of American voters (per
a leaked video recording) makes him hardly the
long-awaited savior. Moreover, disorganized and
divided Republicans between traditional
conservatives, Tea Party supporters and religious
zealots among others are hardly ready for the
coveted 'landslide', as boldly anticipated by
Keith Edwards in the American Thinker on October
2.
The importance of the elections is
barely accentuated by the political forte or
aptitudes of its main candidates, but by the
historic transition that the United States is
currently undergoing. This not just within the
realm of the devastated economy, but in its global
standing as well. Here is where the Middle East
mostly fits in: The timing of the region's own
transition - exemplified by ongoing revolutions,
political upheavals and civil wars - couldn't be
any more challenging or inopportune. Just as US
foreign policy was reconsidering neo-conservative
war wisdom, momentous events throughout the Middle
East are wreaking havoc on an already disorderly
American retreat. Unable to completely shift from
its militant policy of old, the Obama
administration is trying to weather the storm
until the elections are over.
In a Wall
Street Journal Op-Ed on October 1, Romney
recharged, with the hope of challenging mounting
accusations that see his foreign policy expertise
as deficient and misguided. "Our country seems to
be at the mercy of events rather than shaping
them," he wrote, once more demanding action
against Iran, even more US support of Israel, and
greater intervention in Syria, Libya and
elsewhere. His administration, he said, will
"encourage liberty and opportunity" to replace
extremism in the Middle East.
Although
some real differences may be underscored between
both candidates on various issues in the Middle
East, both are strong supporters of Israel, both
tirelessly vying for the backing of the strong
pro-Israel lobby in Washington. Obama, however,
until now at least, refuses to concede to Israeli
demands of agreeing on 'redlines' on Iran's
supposed quest for a nuclear bomb. Romney is
exploiting that diversion to the maximum.
There is little that Middle Eastern
countries can expect from the outcome of the
upcoming elections. The region seems propelled by
its own dynamics, despite insistent US attempts at
intervening or meddling to 'shape outcomes' of
ongoing conflicts. Equally important, regardless
of who will reside in the White House, the
sluggish economy and the fear of getting entangled
in new military adventures, will likely redefine
future US relations to the region.
Ramzy Baroud
(www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally
syndicated columnist and the editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My
Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story
(Pluto Press, London).
(Copyright
2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact us about sales,
syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
