The Foreign Service Journal, November 2008

Israel’s reliance on Egypt to mediate a cease-fire agreement with Hamas. Or the Palestinian president’s decision to enlist Arab conciliators to work out Fatah’s differences with Hamas, rather than concentrating on an American-proclaimed “peace pro- cess” that most in the region have come to view as a cruel fraud. Or Israel’s recourse to Germany to reach understandings with Hezbollah. Or Saudi Arabia’s effort to reach a modus vivendi with Iran, to align the Muslim mainstream against extremism, and to broker renewed peace between Sunnis and Shiites in preparation for interfaith dialogue with Jews and Christians. All these political openings touch on interests that Washington sees as vital. All of them are taking place not- withstanding longstanding American objections, and all of them are unfold- ing in our diplomatic absence. Leaving a Void This is not just because Mr. Magoo has seemingly succeeded Uncle Sam at the helm. In some measure, it’s because the United States has taken sides in disputes with respect to which we had traditionally maintained at least a pretense of evenhandedness. We are therefore seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solu- tion. It is also because promiscuous efforts by the United States to impose military solutions on problems that force cannot resolve have left no room for American diplomacy. The result- ing default on reality-based problem- solving by the U.S. has created a diplomatic void that others are now filling. This trend toward going around the United States has been aggravated by the arrogant and insulting phrasing of some U.S. policy pronouncements. The undisguised disdain of some American envoys for the United Nations, the World Court and region- al organizations, and their open con- tempt for the views of the internation- al communities these represent, have also disinclined others to work with us if they can avoid it. Washington’s political marginalization in the Middle East is a predictable result of such diplomacy-free foreign policies. What could not have been predict- ed is the reputation for incompetence our country has acquired. This has touched even our armed forces, despite their well-deserved reputa- tion as the most professional and lethal practitioners of the arts of war on the planet. Our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were meant to showcase this element of American power, underscore our omnipotence, and intimidate anyone tempted to resist our hegemony. Instead, these military campaigns have had the paradoxical effect of demonstrating the strategic limita- tions of the use of force, eroding the deterrent value of our unmatched military prowess, and proving the effi- cacy of asymmetric warfare as a counter to our strength. Scofflaw U.S. behavior, the ill-con- sidered uses of military power in wars of unilateral choice, and the contrac- tion of freedom in the American homeland have indeed transformed our relationship with the world — but to our grave disadvantage. The abus- es at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guan- tánamo, and the practice of “extraor- dinary rendition,” have dishonored our traditions and defiled our interna- tional reputation. Militarism has debilitated our alliances, friendships and partnerships, and corroded our ability to lead. Much of the world is now serious- ly disenchanted with the United States. Most (though not all) of these self-inflicted wounds derive from our response to the atrocities of 9/11 and our policies toward the Middle East. We have shown not only that we can shoot ourselves in the foot, but that we can reload with exceptional speed and do it again and again. As Israel rained American-sup- plied bombs on Beirut in 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously predicted that Lebanon’s pain represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” She was right about that, but the Middle East now emerging seems to be one in which the United States no longer has con- vening power, political credibility or persuasiveness. It is a region in which all countries fear our military might but no country — not even Israel, despite its dependence on American subventions — defers to our leader- ship. In our own hemisphere, too, with- out many noticing, a major ebb in U.S. influence has taken place. Latin America’s governments may have lit- tle in common beyond a commitment to some form of democracy and social justice, but they share a determina- tion to assert greater autonomy from the United States. To this end, they are courting investment from China, opening markets in Europe, stalling the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, dissenting from the “Wash- ington Consensus,” and crafting re- gional institutions and forming part- nerships that not only exclude the 46 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 8 The Bush administration’s allergy to reality-based problem-solving has created a diplomatic void that others are now filling.