Strategic Paradigms by Ehsan Ahrari

There comes a time in the history of nations—even for the lone superpower—when it needs a fresh start.  Today is just that day.  America is going to have a fresh start.  As President Barack H. Obama stated, America is ready to lead the world once again.  This is not an appropriate time to dwell on the past, but a cursory look is vital, if nothing else, for the sake of some sense of perspective about where the United States is heading as a nation.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States required not only a military response to the perpetrators, but a detailed and introspective look at its foreign policy.  But no such examination of foreign policy was carried out.  One right question was asked: “Why do they hate us?”  But that question got lost in the search for recrimination only.  The assumption underlying that question was that “they” were wrong in hating us because we did nothing wrong in the world, especially in the Muslim world.  Several wrong answers that America’s civilian leadership gave as a self response to the aforementioned question were that “they hate us because we are free and we love freedom.”  Or, “they hate us because of our way of life.”  Such responses made the Americans feel good about themselves.

However, the trouble with such “feel good” answers is that the leadership remains totally oblivious to the need for taking a hard look at the real policy-related reasons for any disgruntlement or hatred of America abroad.  Consequently, under the administration of George W. Bush, the United States went in a wrong direction in a big way.  The first step taken to punish the terrorists by dismantling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the right one.  But America took a series of wrong steps for wrong reasons. 

The first was the invasion of Iraq.  At first, the rationale was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  But, once those weapons were not found, various other convenient justifications were made on a regular basis.  That action transformed Bush’s warning to the world—“either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”—into an ominous threat to countries that were on America’s list of “bad actors,” “rogue states,” or members of an imaginary “axis of evil.”  The only good thing that came out of that threat was Libya’s abandonment of its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons.  However, Kim Jong Il of North Korea and the Iranian leaders took the notion of “regime change” to heart.  Consequently, North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, and Iran may be well on its way to do the same.

America’s image was tarnished immeasurably from its continued occupation of Iraq.  As any occupying force would do, it indulged in prison abuse, humiliation of the proud Iraqis by indulging in all activities that an occupying power deems necessary in the name of “security.”  But those activities made an enemy out of countless citizens of Iraq. 

The United States systematically sent “detainees” from Afghanistan and Iraq to various Arab countries where torture of prisoners is a way of life.  Much worse than that, the United States used torture as a regular tool for extracting information from the prisoners.  And America’s leaders at the highest levels of government approved the use of torture.

The most nettlesome thing that happened to the American hubris was that Iraq became a quagmire from which it was rescued only as a result of cooperation from the “Sons of Iraq.”  That comprised disgruntled Sunni insurgents who were tired of becoming the target of the murderous tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq.  They decided to cooperate with the occupiers and fight al-Qaida.  That development turned out to be a god-sent help to the American military, which was struggling in the Iraqi quagmire.  There was a recommendation from the prestigious Iraq Study Group that the United States cut its losses and get out of Iraq.  It should never be forgotten that what was known as the “surge” strategy inside the United States was a success only because of the timely cooperation from the Sons of Iraq.  

The Iraqi quagmire highlighted the limits of America’s military power.  That reality further emboldened North Korea and Iran.  One also has to recall the dissension caused by America’s invasion and continued occupation of Iraq in Europe, which is traditionally a friendly place for the United States.

Afghanistan, where the United States left the unfinished business of eradicating the presence and influence of al-Qaida, became a nightmare of the Bush administration.  When the worsening security situation made Pakistan a failing state, Washington got a wakeup call.  But the Bush presidency had already become a lameduck one.

Then the United States was hit by the economic meltdown, a reality that further exposed the limitations and growing vulnerability of the lone superpower.  The global chatter grew about the post-American world and its demise as the lone superpower.

The most important aspect of such suggestion is that presidential candidate Barack Obama’s clarion call for the need for change and “yes we can” were given new meaning on the part of the American electorates.  They were not only clamoring for new presidential leadership, but also were growing scared about the escalating personal economic decline related to the subprime mortgage crisis and other crises that hit Wall Street in 2008.

The election of Obama was the resounding call of the American electorates for a fresh start.  It was their resolve to give their new leader the mandate to bring about sweeping changes which would restore America’s global leadership, and, more to the point, transform America’s economic decline into progress and development on a steady basis. 

The inauguration of President Obama’s presidency is national hope—which started with the slogan of “yes we can”—for restoring American leadership, by making a clean break with the exercise of arrogance and hubris in the international arena.  It is the mark of a new era when numerous springs of new policies will start flowing from Washington in domestic and foreign policy.  It is about giving the American pluralism new meaning by empowering minorities, a process that began during the turbulence of the 1960s, but has been in dire need of broadening its scope.  It is about dealing with America’s allies with dignity, and conducting dialogues where the United States listens as well as talks.  It is about dealing with the world of Islam as a true friend, who wishes to see the development of democracy and equality in that part of the world, but not by issuing threats.  It is about the beginning of a new age when America will make a clean break from all failed policies of the past.  This is indeed a tall order, but that is that the only way of rejuvenating the “American spirit” and of restoring America’s global leadership.

The world of the 21^st Century is very different from the one from the preceding century.  The information revolution has entered into an era when it has empowered the East as well as the West.  It is an era when no powerful nation-state will be allowed to dictate its agenda to the weak.  The need for solving the increasingly complex economic problems is bringing together nations from different regions of the world.  It is an era when the economic meltdown has brought the rich and the not-so-rich nations together.  It is an era when Obama’s call of “yes we can” has a global meaning and is a source for hope.  There are no longer just American, Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, or Arab problems.  Now, the world is facing truly human problems, which require all the best and brightest to get together and find solutions.  In that sense, Obama’s presidency appears most qualified to be in the lead.  If it succeeds in finding solutions to human problems in a humane and collective fashion, then American leadership will be restored decidedly.  Let us hope that “yes he will.”