Old School Debate

Although most of my sources on news in the Middle East and other current events come from online, the fastest news source, today I'm going old school and using The Gazette. Not for another informative about a protest being violently repressed, or news of occupy protestors getting tear gassed. No, today the Gazette has bestowed upon my an interesting opinion piece on the effect of the Arab Spring on U.S. interests and foreign policy. One of the Gazette's Pro/Con pieces, the article is answered by Lawrence J. Haas, part of the American Foreign Policy Council, and John B. Quigley, professor at Ohio State University. Their opinions are both on either side of the political center, Haas being more right-oriented, Quigley to the left. However, though I must say I usually find my self leaning to the left, both of them give well thought out answers and raise important points when discussing the impact of the Arab Spring. 

Haas starts off stating that the US has short term goals and long term goals in the middle east. Short term we want to reduce terrorism, protect allies, and support regional stability. A tall order. Long term we want to encourage freedom and democracy in order to gain allies, reduce threats, and expand opportunity for millions of people as well as investments. I would agree with these points. But Haas then goes on to state that the recent uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, etc have given way to Islamic radical groups that challenge everything we're working for. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nour Party in Egypt. He states that these groups interest in restoring Sharia and imposing radical Islamic beliefs is a threat to the US and the Middle East. This I would agree with to a point. It is certainly true that radical groups pose a threat to both outsiders and others of the same faith. Many Muslims are not radical and do not in fact welcome strict Islamic law. This is also true of many other radical groups among other faiths as well. Radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood CAN pose a threat to the stability of the reason, but maybe not to the extent that Haas has us believe. Basically, he is arguing these anti-western Islamic radical groups are going to fill the power vacuums left by the dictators and create a new Middle East that is totally against us. While that could happen, I'm pretty sure that's a worst-case scenario, as many of the protesters and public want freedom, something not always synonymous with restrictive Islamic fundamentalism.

Quigley takes another look at things and instead of pointing towards the radical groups as the source of problems, he instead points to the US as the instigators of these problems. He argues that because of US involvement in the Middle East, we've done more harm than good. By being inconsistent in our policy and often intervening when we shouldn't have or not doing enough in other places, we have brought these radical groups on ourselves. While this may be true, and he does a good job of stating specific examples, this may be another point of blaming everything on America because America just sucks. As always we have to take these with a grain of salt; radical groups are a potential threat, but singling out Islamic ones will only further increase their animosity towards us. Also, it is not always  America's fault, although we have made our share of politic blunders when it comes to the Middle East. As long as we can find a middle ground, stay consistent with a policy, and not meddle too much, I think the Arab Spring could be beneficiary to the US.