Ideological bias distorts US Democrats' view of Middle East
The Middle East, to say nothing of the world, is much bigger than Saudi Arabia, yet a few Democratic legislators' myopic focus on the real or imagined moral shortcomings of the kingdom threatens to tarnish the party's reputation as a responsible steward of American power and influence in a tinderbox of tensions.
How the Democratic left's pet peeves against Saudi Arabia – and, by extension, against the UAE – slowly morphed into a hyperpartisan obsession is for scholars of current history to unpick and chronicle. But sadly the party's animus towards the two Western partners is of a piece with the general behaviour of self-declared progressives in prosperous electoral democracies, whereby a fixation with certain wedge issues (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) becomes a dog whistle for a broader message to their core constituencies.
To an impartial observer of international affairs, the trouble spots of the Middle East are so many, the political and economic challenges so daunting, and the forces of conservatism and intolerance so entrenched, one would think Democratic liberals would have their hands full with charting a brilliant grand strategy. Instead, moral posturing, political grandstanding and gratuitous hectoring of America's most steadfast partners seem to have become the hallmark of the party's ascendant "progressive" wing.
Had there been an iota of genuine idealism among the Democratic Party "progressives," espousing the cause of the Middle East's Kurds in general, and Syria's Kurds in particular, would have been at the top of their agenda. After all, few ethnic groups anywhere in the world can match the zeal of the Kurds in defending universal human values such as freedom, pluralism and equality. In fact, the Kurdish forces that have battled the Islamic State group, or ISIS, practice egalitarianism and feminism of a kind that makes American political "progressives" almost staid by comparison.
Yet it is impossible to recall a time when the Democratic Party made cross-border assaults by Turkey and Iran that violate Iraq's sovereignty and kill mostly Kurdish civilians their cri de coeur. Or when Democratic leaders issued a call for Kurdish self-determination as a token of the West's collective gratitude for the enormous sacrifices in blood and treasure made by the Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey to defeat the barbarians of ISIS in Mosul, Raqqa and Kobane and thus save "our shared civilization."
Consequently, the burden of speaking up for America's most dependable partners and allies in the Middle East has fallen on Republican legislators, who, with the exception of a few mavericks, have acquitted themselves honorably of late. The 68-32 vote by the Senate on January 31 to advance legislation drafted by Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to express strong opposition to Trump's withdrawal of military forces from Syria and Afghanistan, capped weeks of intense lobbying by senior administration officials and Republican security hawks.
By pulling out all the stops initially to thwart Trump's shock military-pullout orders, then to slow down the process, and finally to reject his rationale, the Republicans have, to their eternal credit, undone much of the damage inflicted by their president on America's reputation as a nation that, in theory, is ready to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Two separate bills co-sponsored by Congressman Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, seeking to bar the Trump administration from abruptly withdrawing troops from Syria and South Korea, have made slight amends for the Democrats' conspicuous failure to stand by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). As has a letter written jointly by Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and a Republican senator urging Trump to develop "a comprehensive plan to protect our Kurdish partners" and "prevent armed conflict between Kurdish forces and the Republic of Turkey."
Even Trump, for all his irrational behavior, policy flip-flops and impromptu telephone conversations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had the grace to shake hands with Ilham Ahmed, a representative of the SDF's political arm who was visiting Washington, DC, tell her "I love the Kurds" and assure her that the Kurds are "not going to be killed."
The Democrats, by contrast, have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from John F Kennedy's historic "pay any price, bear any burden" pledge.
As the New York Times noted, "Senate liberals, many of them exploring presidential runs in 2020, voted against [McConnell's] measure" while, to their undying shame, "several prospective candidates, including Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York [have] endorsed Mr Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan."
The Democrats' abandonment of America's secular Muslim partners was explained away glibly by the Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy thus: "This [McConnell] amendment ... could, frankly, get us even more deeply mired into a series of conflicts in the Middle East."
If legislators such as Murphy, Sanders, Ro Khanna and Mark Pocan think they can help end the conflicts in Yemen and get justice for the slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by sponsoring measures in the Senate and publicly declaiming on the issues, they are barking up the wrong tree. Their tweets and statements on the twin issues have a paternalistic tone reflecting an overestimation of their political clout and moral authority that is rooted in a deep ignorance of the Middle East's complex power dynamics.
Granted, said US politicians' juvenile whataboutery (Venezuela/Yemen) and neo-colonial drivel are essential for scoring political points with their "progressive" domestic bases, and presumably also with their billionaire campaign donors. However, at an international level, such rhetoric diminishes the stature of the Democratic Party in the eyes of America's genuine partners and allies, whose soldiers lay their lives on the line daily in conflict zones to prevent a resurgence of terrorism and keep Iran's geopolitical ambitions in check.
Against this backdrop of cognitive dissonance in the Democratic psyche, countries and political blocs that want the US not only to stay engaged in the Middle East but become more assertive may have to rely increasingly on the sound judgement of establishment Republicans.
This is not to say they should write off Democrats as inherently hostile or incorrigibly ignorant. But it does mean that in addition to the designs of their adversaries, they have to factor the potential nuisance value of the Democratic Party's flashy "progressive" faction into their every strategic move.
Arnab Neil Sengupta is an independent journalist and commentator on the Middle East.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
