It is evident that the failure of US military interventions in the Middle East are not analytical assumptions that require proofs and examples. It is rather a reality admitted by Washington’s political circles. One can refer, for example, to what Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser to Barack Obama, wrote in Foreign Affairs. He argued that Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia would have been better off without US intervention.
Yet, the most persistent question being raised at think tanks revolves around the dynamics leading to failure of US military interventions in the Middle East. These can be outlined as follows:
1- Lack of accurate understanding of dominant culture, and the disparity between traditional societies of the Middle East and the West:
Some American elites believed that adopting theories such as “creative chaos” as the foundation for nation re-building according to Western principles and values can succeed in the Middle East. All relevant experiences, however, were doomed to total failure, and some even backfired and went in the opposite direction pushing regional states into a quagmire of chaos, violence, turmoil, fragmentation along sectarian, confessional and ethnic lines. It further resulted in a total collapse of the concept of state, and a relapse to hotbeds and allegiances that became largely obsolete, such as tribalism, territorialism and confessionalism.
Hence, a discussion point here revolves around American dreamy visions for building democracy and free-market economy without taking into consideration the influence of the environment, traditions and the dominant culture in regional states, as well as a study of the impact of all that on visions presented by American policymakers. Libya, for example, was expected to rapidly transition to an oil-rich country that is loyal to the West and that becomes a market that is ready for Western arms companies. But instead, the whole vision turned to a security quagmire and the country became a new foothold for terror organizations and a transit route for arms bound for terrorists in the Sahel region.
2- Low US spending on reconstruction:
US military interventions that raised the slogan of nation-rebuilding and consolidation of democracy spent only little money to achieve major goals of development and nation-building. For example, out of the US military spending in Afghanistan, estimated at around one trillion dollars, only USD 130 billion were used to achieve this goal, while the majority of the funds were spent on US troops operating in the country. Moreover, the US only spent USD 10 billion on combating illicit trafficking of drugs.
3- A lack of a long-term strategic vision:
In the beginning, US presidents and commanders spoke about endeavors to rebuild states and re-instate democracy, a culture of human rights and Western values in these states. When President Joe Biden spoke about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said “We did not go to Afghanistan to nation build” but to combat terrorism. The result is that this strategic confusion has damaged the US interests and credibility and contributed towards creating fragile and weak states and regions. It further enabled terrorism to spread where terror organizations turned to a mosaic spreading across wider swathes of territory. And instead of creating a security void in just one state- that is Afghanistan in 2001- this void spread along to engulf Iraq, Syria and Libya.
4- Mistakes in managing the 2011 Arab Spring:
The US adopted a vision mandating reliance on groups viewed as a model for moderate Islamism to replace existing regimes. The result was the failure of these groups in running states due to their lack of experience in politics and government management, as well as deep internal divisions. The new situation offered an opportunity to regional expansionist powers to interfere in their neighbors’ internal affairs, which Iran did in Yemen and Syria. Combined, these mistakes would have caused a major regional disaster had it not been for Arab peoples who got rid of the grip of radical groups, as was the case in Egypt in June 2013.
5- Washington ignores its regional allies when it draws up policies on the Middle East:
Two decades of US policies on Iran have led it to being closer to acquiring nuclear weapons as well as developing an arsenal of advanced missile systems capable of launching long-range precision attacks that pose a threat to US troops stationed in the Middle East. This eventually led the US to consider re-deployment of its troops in countries such as Iraq. Additionally, Washington became less capable of reining in Iran’s strategic momentum driven by its moving ever closer to nuclear bomb-making capability.
6- Washington’s policies of harmonization and combination on some terror organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood:
That is, Washington is hesitant to designate these organizations as terrorist entities. The reason is its belief that it should preserve strategic goals and interests by maintaining a thin thread of relations with leaders of these organizations. The hold-the-stick-in-the-middle policy has inflicted huge losses on US intervention in Syria, Iraq and other countries.
7- Allies’ confidence in Washington is diminishing:
No doubt, the US is suffering from a gap between its rhetoric and actions which has diminished mutual confidence of US allies in the Middle East. This did not only mean that Washington did not back its allied regimes in 2011, but also failure to carry out repeated commitments such as countering Iran’s activities threatening regional security and stability in the Arab Gulf region. This situation is not only associated with military operations, but also with supporting allies’ defense capabilities to counter such threats, as well as building required deterrence and balance of power to confront existing dangers.
Lastly, overall, these factors of failure lie in the United States’ self-perception of superiority, which swells up to the degree of believing that it can export its own values and principles to societies that are not prepared to embrace these values and implement them without even holding consultations or coordinating with traditional allies. Additionally, confusion in the US foreign policy on the Middle East has led in recent years to a lack of official support from regional countries.
Accordingly, when former US President Donald Trump described former presidents’ decisions to send troops to the Middle East as the “biggest mistake” in US history, confidence in the US ability to preserve its status and influence in this region immediately dropped. That is because Washington sometimes acts as per its economic considerations and calculations, while ignoring any strategic considerations, in the sense that the presence of US troops in the Middle East symbolizes its leadership of the world.
That is why speaking about withdrawing from the region has many implications for US world leadership, and as such it is not confined to the plummeting oil prices, or the diminishing purchasing power of regional states, which are the largest buyers of US arms. Partnership is not confined to the level of trade and arms, but also expand even wider to include mutual strategic and security interests.
