Search results

Western leaders portray the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a league of democratic nations as well as a security alliance. Although the organization tolerated illiberal members during the Cold War, it would be more than a little embarrassing to have an outright autocracy emerge in NATO's ranks today. Yet worrisome manifestations of authoritarianism and intolerance have surfaced in several members. Two NATO countries, Hungary and Turkey, have engaged in repeated autocratic behavior reminiscent of Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia. Such developments provide yet another reason why US policymakers should reconsider America's continuing role as NATO's leader.

Western news media outlets have paid considerable attention to the civil war in Syria, but much of the coverage is simplistic and melodramatic. Too many accounts portray the conflict as a Manichean struggle between the evil, brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad and noble freedom fighters seeking to create a new, democratic Syria. The reality is far more complex and murky. Syria's turmoil has troubling, long-term implications not only for that country but for the Middle East as a whole, and even for the international system. The searing images of civilian casualties coming out of Syria have been hard to watch. Several thousand innocent people perished between the eruption of resistance to Assad's regime in March 2011 and the beginning of 2013, with no end in sight. There is little doubt that government forces were responsible for the majority of deaths. The prospect that Assad might be overthrown is understandably appealing to Westerners from a moral standpoint, but the West needs to be fully aware of the potential for unintended, and possibly quite unpleasant, consequences.

Misleading propaganda and the creation of false history were pervasive and corrosive during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Both the Clinton administration and the news media were responsible for the disreputable situation. And unlike the discrediting of the Bush administration's distorted accounts regarding the Iraq crisis, the Balkan myths are as prevalent today as when they were first created. That situation is dangerous on two counts. First, it inhibits the formulation of intelligent, realistic, and equitable policies regarding current Balkan issues. Second, the success of such a campaign of disinformation creates the irresistible temptation for officials and policy lobbies to try the same techniques during future international crises in that region or elsewhere.

Although US leaders have long regarded Turkey as a crucial strategic ally, relations between Ankara and Washington have been deteriorating for years. Domestic changes in Turkey, especially the decline of secular forces, account for some of that estrangement but fundamental disagreements about international issues are a more important cause. The United States and Turkey differ sharply about policy regarding Iraq, Iran, the Israeli-Arab conflict, and other matters. In addition to disagreements about those specific issues, Turkish leaders increasingly view the United States as a reckless, destabilizing power in the Middle East rather than a cautious, stabilizing power. Given that perspective, the estrangement between the two countries is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future.