Davis Merritt: Kissinger outlines way to think about Mideast

Perhaps because the prospects for a solution to this generation’s spasm in the Mideast seem so dreary, most Americans, including politicians, stay focused on the past.

Condemning past decisions that did not work out is easier and involves less effort and risk than does formulating and executing future ones that might. And events such as the midair disintegration of the Russian airliner distract us from the inescapable reality that we are trying to deal with a thousand-year history of cultures foreign to us in both the geographic and philosophical senses.

As guardians of the values and principles that make America the brightest example of a free society in a fractured world, we need more than simplistic slogans and political posturing to deal with the Mideast. “Take out ISIS” and “face down Putin” are not strategies.

Formulating an enduring, realistic strategy requires mental discipline, political maturity and appreciation of history, all in short supply these days.

All Americans – including would-be presidents – should work through a decision-making matrix outlined in Henry Kissinger’s 2014 tour de force of diplomacy titled “World Order.”

The onetime adviser to presidents and all-time pragmatist suggests that to play a responsible role in the 21st-century world, the United States must answer a number of questions, including:

▪  What things do we seek to prevent, alone if necessary, no matter what it takes? This would define the minimum condition for the survival of society.

▪  What do we seek to achieve, if necessary by ourselves? This would define the minimum objective of our national strategy.

▪  What things do we seek to achieve or prevent only if supported by an alliance? This would define the outer limits of our strategic aspirations.

▪  What should we not engage in, even if urged by a multilateral alliance? This would define the limit of our willingness to compromise our fundamental principles.

An earnest effort to identify and rank order the answers to those questions makes it possible to construct – and explain – a Mideast strategy. As a parlor game, it would be a bit grim, but as the format for serious discussion in a classroom, on a debate stage, around the kitchen table or in a neighborhood or civic group, it’s useful.

Each question requires a separate deliberation, and the sequence provides a mechanism for culling the previous question’s list of possibilities. For instance, if you determine that we must prevent ISIS, no matter how, and on our own if necessary, from establishing its coveted caliphate in Iraq and Syria, then you cannot say in step four that we will not kill innocent or captive people; nor can you say that we will not send an occupying force there.

Surfacing that sort of dilemma makes talking about terrorism a tougher proposition than snapping off a couple of sound bites, so don’t listen for real strategies during Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate.

For more than a decade, it has seemed clear to some that vigorous containment is the only realistic way to deal with Islamic extremists until the Arab world itself decides that tolerating a psychopathic minority is no longer an option – that when the West no longer needs Arab oil and the world’s airlines no longer risk flying tourists and businesspeople to Arab nations, things will change.

Working through the Kissinger matrix only reinforces that belief.

This story was originally published November 9, 2015 at 6:01 PM with the headline "Davis Merritt: Kissinger outlines way to think about Mideast."