Book Review: Losing The Long Game by Philip Gordon
Every society can get there. It may take time, but every society can get there. The only thing America needs to do is get out of the way. "Get out of the way."
No region has given the US Empire more headaches than the Middle East.
Some will argue against using "Empire" for the US. Don't take my word for it; take Prof. Niall Ferguson's words for it. But take my criticism of Ferguson: he used the Empire word in a good way; as a non-American, I understand it for all its fouls. Empire can only be alluring if you are the conqueror.
It was good to read this book by Philip Gordon. Losing The Long Game. It makes a persuasive argument that US involvement, in specific regime change, in the Middle East has been a failure since the 1970s. This is true. And nothing novel; the only difference is that a major figure who has been part of US policy thinking is finally saying it. That counts for something. Maybe the US will finally start thinking straight about its policies in the Middle East and around the world.
When you are as powerful as the US, the temptation to topple governments you deem against you is always hard to resist. Of course, it is both wrong and risky. Non Americans have argued the latter for years. Now, someone is also showing that it is risky and too costly. It rarely ever leads to the objective that the US defined at the beginning.
Philip Gordon chronicles the US regime change efforts in several countries, starting with Iran in 1953, Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan before and after 9/11, Libya in 2011, Egypt in 2011, and Syria in 2011.
In Iran, removing Mohammed Mossadegh was removed, but the Shah who came in went far beyond and became his own man. The whole regime became anti-US. What is ironic is that Mohammed would have been a far better guy as he was a moderate. With lies, propaganda, and violence, he was removed only to bring in a government that would sow the seed for US headaches in the middle for generations. It is the one sin that tainted the Americans in the Middle East. In Iraq, removing Saddam Hussein turned out to be the easiest part. It led Iraq to a path of chaos that it hasn't recovered from. Worse, Saddam didn't have any single WMD. For many, including me, the invasion of Iraq was the demystification of American lies. Afghanistan withdrawal under Biden in 2021 was broadcasted all over the world. For 20 years, America tried to achieve its aim in that backwater, yet came out with nothing. Situation was practically the same; the Taliban was still back in power. It was inevitable. The United States spent a staggering $2 trillion in the war in Afghanistan, which breaks down to approximately $300 million daily for 20 years. Gadhafi's death did not bring democracy to Libya; it only led to a failed state that has not gotten to its feet till date. In Egypt, Mubarak was out, but he was only replaced by a more militant fundamentalist government in Morsi. It was so bad, the US looked away as Sisi took power. He is still in control today. One old soldier left; a new soldier came in. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad only strengthened his stay in power. Nothing changed.
Gordon was repetitive in this book, but I get why he was trying to make an argument that many Americans, especially those in policy circles, do not want to hear.
He is not saying that these regimes or figures were heroes; he was not saying that Gadhafi was not abusing and killing civilians or that Sadam was not brutalizing his people. His argument is that the objectives that the US government set out to achieve were not achieved in all these cases over the long run. So what was the point?
US Foreign policymakers and ordinary Americans often fall into the temptation to think that America is all powerful and can do anything it wants, so far as they consider it to be morally right and in protection of their interests. These case studies show that it doesn't work that way.
I enjoyed this book. Good argument by Gordon. Of course, he wrote it with the US perspective. I wish I could write one with a non-US perspective. I would have had a lot to say about Libya and Egypt.
I hated the notions he was passing across that some of these countries are not suitable for democracy. I chuckled at those places. Those were the same arguments made about Europe in the Medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation ages. So many scholars in those days said Europeans were not suitable for democracy and monarchy was the only option. Of course, we now know that Europeans are suitable for democracy.
Every society can get there. It may take time, but every society can get there. The only thing America needs to do is get out of the way.
"Get out of the way."
That phrase raises another problem. Like in the case of Libya, in which Gadhafi was using tanks against protesters, what should the world do? Keep silent?
Can America really "get out of the way"? Are we sure we understand the implication of saying that the rest of the world should have no say in the affairs of other countries? The question has no easy answer.
Even strong states, like America, look for friends in the world. Can weak states avoid it? And at what point does the influence of these states end? One may be cynical about any involvement of another country in a different state on the basis of sovereignty, but we have to remember that the world is not a perfect place and there are real examples of involvements that led to good. Indeed, if you look at some of these examples, they flowed from good intentions, at least from the American perspective. Examples such as the Bosnian War that American involvement brought to an end. The Liberian War that ECOWAS involvement brought to an end. The removal and stabilization of The Gambia, that ECOWAS involvement stabilized.
So, where do these begin and where do they end?
These are the questions for foreign relations bluffs. The answers won't be straight. The answers won't be easy.
For now, Gordon has done fine work, and hopefully, US policymakers will read this and deaden the whole idea of regime change easily.
It was good to leave Will Durant and biographies/memoirs for some days. Geopolitics is the stuffs I read to get my mind away from daily problems. Isn't it easy to debate about the problems of Libya than to continue repeating the already well established solutions to Nigerians?