The American public and the Islamic world

Now it is perhaps time to ask another question: What is the American public’s reaction to all this? What does an average American citizen think about this violent reaction in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Pakistan etc. The short answer is this: “the urge to get out.” Even before American embassies came to be targeted last week across the Islamic world there was an unmistakable sense of Middle East fatigue in the United States. This should not be surprising. After two wars that went awfully wrong, an endless economic recession at home, growing turmoil in Syria and the constant fear of more mayhem (a nuclear Iran, or worse, an Israeli attack on Iran) who can blame Americans for turning increasingly skeptical about more involvement in the Islamic world?

The default position of the American public is isolationism. They are tired of the Arab world and they are tired of being blamed for everything under the sun. Indeed, the hope and optimism created by the Arab Spring proved very short lived. During the early days of the Arab Awakening, most Americans were very happy to see that for once the young masses in Cairo, Tunis, Libya and Yemen were not burning American or Israeli flags. Instead they were angry with their own tyrannical regimes. Now, after the tragic events of last week, this brief moment of optimism is officially over.

Most Americans share a sense of déjà vu and they want to retreat rather than endorse more futile engagement with the Arab and Islamic world.   The fact that the worst attack, the one that killed the American ambassador, came in the very country in which Washington played a leading role in terms of helping the people against the tyrannical regime, will only exacerbate America’s confusion and the view that no good deed goes unpunished. Make no mistake, the events in Libya will have a major impact on America’s approach to Syria. The killing of the American ambassador in Libya is a big blow to liberal internationalists who advocate more US involvement in helping the anti-Assad uprising.

At its core, the liberal internationalist camp was making a moral argument based on being on the right side of history. But in order to cater to the “realist” camp dominating the American foreign policy establishment, liberal internationalists also tried to make a case about American national interests in post-Assad Syria. The argument was that in the absence of a stronger US involvement to liberate Syria from Assad’s dictatorial and murderous regime, the new leaders of Syria who will sooner or later run the country will never forgive Washington. It was therefore in interest of the administration of Barack Obama to forge stronger links with the Syrian opposition at this early stage so that America would have more leverage tomorrow when the opposition is in power. Well, what happened in Benghazi last week showed what kind of leverage America has with the new Libya. The incredulity was evident in the words of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she asked, “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate?”

Although the context is very different from the George W. Bush administration, in some ways, the situation reminds me of post-invasion Iraq and the American frustration with the insurgency against the US occupation. A neoconservative American colleague of mine who was teaching a course on the Middle East and serving as an occasional advisor to former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed his frustration in these remarkable terms: “What really bothers me is the ingratitude in Iraq. When we liberated the country from Saddam we were looking for Iraqis, instead what we found were Arabs.”

I’m afraid what is now taking place in the Middle East confirms American views about the pathological situation in the Arab world. The perception is that whatever America does, it will always be blamed because of conspiracy theories. The conclusion will be that it is best to stay away from this region. In the eyes of most Americans, the Obama administration did its best to distance itself from what triggered all this mess -- the anti-Islamic amateur video insulting the Prophet. Clinton called it “disgusting,” President Obama condemned it in equally strong terms. What else can Washington do? If the predominant view in the Islamic world insists that this video reflects the anti-Islamic views of the American public and the American government, you can understand why most Americans are not interested in having this conversation.