By Feyaad Allie
Last Friday evening, General James Mattis, retired commander of US Central Command, sat down for a dinner and discussion with members of World Outlook. From this experience, I gained invaluable insight into different viewpoints regarding American policy in the Middle East.
Not surprisingly, General Mattis was called upon to speak about the current situation in Syria. He emphasized that when considering any intervention; the US government must articulate specific goals. He contended that a lack of defined objectives makes it difficult to even consider intervening, no matter the circumstances – leading to questions about the moral imperative in the case of human rights abuses. Mattis responded that since America is not fiscally stable, it is difficult for human rights issues to be a top priority. He asserted that intervention would require cutting domestic costs or borrowing more money from Beijing, both of which are undesirable. Though I didn’t entirely agree with the General’s lack of emphasis on the moral arguments in his assessment of Syria, I did think he offered valid points to consider. The Syrian crisis is a delicate situation and warrants careful thought. The dinner with General Mattis reaffirmed for me that there is no ideal way to handle the conflict.
Other points of interest from the discussion were General Mattis’ justifications for continuing US involvement in the Middle East: 1) US allies, such as Israel and Jordan; 2) the presence of oil; 3) the existence of violent extremism; and 4) the US’ ability to facilitate peace talks. These reasons highlighted the importance of remaining engaged with the Middle East.
Overall, the dinner discussion emphasized the necessity of US involvement in the Middle East and the complexity of issues in that region.