Last weekend, Tom Friedman, America's favorite middle-brow international optimist, threw up his hands in disgust. Though he made his name as a journalist covering Israel and its rivals and gained notoriety with continued calls to take just one more six-month stint in Iraq, Friedman now says enough is enough in the Middle East peace process:
Let's just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: 'My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It's just you and me and the problem we own.'
…Indeed, it's time for us to dust off James Baker's line: 'When you're serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack.'
It has a certain appeal, doesn't it? The United States has spent so much time out in the world trying to solve problems that our involvement seems to prolong the status quo as often as change it. Given the challenges we face at home, the idea that we should remove ourselves from certain conflicts until we're asked back in -- not withdrawing from the international system, just from international quagmires -- seems intuitive.
The long-stalled "negotiations" between fractured Palestinian leadership and Israeli leaders who seem to have turned the old land-for-peace saw on its head by trading the future of their state for illegal settlements are just one example. Consider Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, who has cheerfully flouted U.S. demands for real accountability despite the fact that American forces are the only thing keeping him in power. At least Iraq's troubled political process has managed to take a step forward with a new election law shepherded through the Legislature by U.S. diplomats -- at one point, Ambassador Chris Hill was seen chivvying laggardly Iraqi politicians toward the vote.
But while Friedman's diagnosis is right, his prescription is hemmed in by the same conventional wisdom he seeks to violate. The Times columnist is correct to observe that the U.S. wants peace in the Middle East and in Afghanistan -- more than many local stakeholders; there's an incentive to maintain the status quo, even at the expense of American resources, time, and lives. But the solution isn't walking away, at least for liberal internationalists who correctly see that the future of the United States is bound up with international security and a global economy.
What Friedman's analysis really implies is that the United States needs to be more willing to use its leverage. While he suggests we shouldn't involve ourselves in the peace process without direct requests from the players, that's not the right conclusion. Instead, the U.S. should change the status quo itself. For example, the U.S. could make at least some of our aid to Israel conditional on stopping illegal settlements or alleviating the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Such a decision might be, for now, politically anathema -- but the fact that nothing has been accomplished yet in the Middle East isn't just because the current situation suits both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. It's also because the U.S. hasn't done anything to change the facts on the ground.
Look at Afghanistan: Experts agree that the key to successful counter-insurgency is the legitimacy of the local government. The government of Hamid Karzai, though, is unrelentingly corrupt and rarely effective at the basic tasks of the state. President Barack Obama's recognition that Afghanistan's stability is key national interest may have contributed to Kabul's ineffectiveness: Karzai can delay hard choices about his government, secure in the knowledge that the U.S. forces propping up his regime aren't going anywhere soon.
However, there is some sense that this administration may be losing its reluctance to tolerate intransigence from our allies. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to meet with Obama during a visit to Washington on Monday, White House officials required him to express stronger public support for the peace process first. That's a start but hardly enough to jumpstart the moribund peace process.
Similarly, in Afghanistan, Obama called Karzai to congratulate him after his chief political rival, Abdullah Abdullah, dropped out of a planned run-off election, but the bulk of their conversation concerned the need to "write a new chapter" in Afghan governance. The White House has requested a detailed review of local governance in Afghanistan, with the aim of identifying corrupt leaders who need to be replaced. The next step should be urging Karzai to clean up his cabinet. The message? You're not the only game in town.
Israel is, and should be, a key U.S. friend and ally. Afghanistan could be the same. But so long as a progressive foreign policy is defined by letting the interests of local elites trump those of both the United States and the people on the ground, then there won't be a progressive foreign policy at all. Just strategic -- ah, what's the word? -- dithering.
