The Region: A friend who acts like an enemy is an enemy

The expression, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?” is an apt summary of a major problem for current US foreign policy.

October 28, 2012 22:45
Protesters burn US flag in Afghanistan.

Protesters burn US flag in Afghanistan 390. (photo credit: REUTERS)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

The expression, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?” is an apt summary of a major problem for current US foreign policy. It has subtly pervaded the US presidential election, but neither candidate is willing to confront this dilemma.

Here’s the issue: A number of supposed allies of the United States don’t act as friends. In fact, they are major headaches, often subverting US goals and interests. But to avoid conflict and, for Obama, to look successful to the domestic audience, Washington pretends that everything is fine.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

Consider, for example, Pakistan.

The US has given billions of dollars to that country in exchange for supposedly helping keeping the lid on Afghanistan – and especially to ensure the Taliban does not return to power – and to fight terrorism, especially al-Qaida.

In reality, Pakistan supports the Taliban, wages a terrorist war on India, and hasn’t been all that helpful in fighting al-Qaida. It would be interesting to see the US intelligence document evaluating how high up in Pakistan’s government was the knowledge that Osama bin Laden was “hiding out” a few blocks from a Pakistani military complex. The fact that Pakistan threw into prison a local doctor whose work helped find bin Laden indicates which side that regime is on.

Moreover, Pakistan’s regime is ferociously oppressing the Christian minority, becoming more Islamist, and giving women the usual treatment existing in such societies. Obama claims to be protecting women and religious minorities yet lifts not a finger in Pakistan. And rather than be a force against terrorism, the Pakistani government has been sponsoring a terrorist war against India.

After the horrible massacre of civilians in Mumbai, it became clear that the attack was sponsored and planned by Pakistan using terrorists trained and enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. India was left helpless as Pakistan simply refused to cooperate with the investigation or to turn over terrorists from the group responsible. In short, the United States is massively subsidizing a major sponsor of international terrorism.

Yet for the US government to admit that the Pakistani government is more enemy than friend would make it even more uncooperative and might lead to attacks on the US embassy and diplomats. Pretending that a regime like Pakistan’ s is helpful – and continuing to fork over US taxpayer money to it – is a huge temptation. Only if the regime in question does something obviously horrible – and even the bin Laden case wasn’t sufficient to sour the White House on Pakistan – will the situation change.

Of course, some measures have been taken but basically Pakistan isn’t paying for its behavior. Consequently, it will continue acting in a hostile way, subsidized by the United States.

The scope of this problem becomes clear if you add to this list such places as Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Turkey, Venezuela, Bolivia and several other countries in a similar situation.

Take Egypt, for example. The country is now governed by a radical, anti-American, anti-Semitic government dedicated to spreading jihad, imposing Shari’a law and driving US influence from the region. It could be argued that a mix of carrots and sticks from the United States would moderate the regime’s behavior. But what if that doesn’t work? The temptation is to continue with the carrots and forget about the sticks.

Obama says that the “red lines” are that the Cairo regime must adhere to the peace treaty with Israel; treat women and religious minorities (that is, Christians) well; and help fight terrorism. But what if it doesn’t? Suppose the Salafist burn down churches and massacre Christians and the government does not protect the minority? Suppose a Shari’a regime reduces women’s rights to a minimum? Suppose Egypt declares itself no longer bound by the peace treaty with Israel or pretty openly arms Hamas in the Gaza Strip for an attack on Israel? Will Obama be prepared for a conflict, even a confrontation, with the Arabic-speaking world’s largest country? Would even a President Mitt Romney do so? In other words, the argument would be made that it is better to keep giving money, selling weapons and shutting up about criticism than to make a break.

Moreover, the president who did make a change could be accused of getting the United States into an unnecessary battle and making more enemies. To some extent, that’s what happened with president George W. Bush.

The possible difference between the two current candidates could end up looking like this: Obama version: Although you act as enemies we will believe you are friends. Romney version: We know you aren’t really friends but we don’t have a choice.

In practice, the difference would be that Romney would have a lower threshold for acting against betrayal than would Obama.

Of course, a large part of the problem with Obama’s policy is that he not only treated enemies as friends and did not pressure supposed friends that acted like enemies, he joined them. Thus, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are arming anti-American Islamist forces in Syria with US intelligence officers supervising the action.

The only restriction is that the guns don’t go to groups affiliated with al-Qaida. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how extremist they are. In Libya, one of the groups treated as “good guys”– supplied with guns by the United States during the civil war there – went on to kill the US ambassador.

Yet given the current situation, especially in the Middle East, a realistic policy would make the enemies’ list seem too long and discouraging.

In political and diplomatic terms that means the truth will be covered up. The important question is: How far does a country have to go, how futile and even counterproductive do the pay-offs have to be, before it is no longer treated as a friend?

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, and editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center is at

Related Content

August 19, 2018
Letters to the Editor: August 20, 2018