The Middle East Doesn't 'Need' the U.S.

It is doubtful that the American military presence in the region achieves much of anything.

Daniel Byman tries to defend keeping a large U.S. military presence in the Middle East:

A pessimistic view of the United States’ record and prospects in the region, however, misses important, if less dramatic, U.S. achievements in the Middle East. Although these outcomes are less visible and can be difficult to quantify, a strong U.S. military presence prevents a variety of actions by adversaries and allies that might make the region even less stable and generate more civil strife, nuclear proliferation, dangerous interventions, and other grave threats. Maintaining even a limited U.S. military presence is therefore vital to mitigating these risks, even if the United States continues to fall short of its ambitious regional goals.

It is doubtful that the American military presence in the region achieves much of anything. To the extent that it does, the costs related to maintaining this presence outweigh any conceivable benefits. These costs can be measured in the resources and manpower wasted on a region where the U.S. has few important interests, and they can also be measured in the conflicts that the U.S. chooses to join, support, or start because it remains entangled in the region’s affairs.

Put another way, if the U.S. weren’t already so heavily overcommitted in the Middle East no rational policymaker would recommend putting so many troops and ships into the region. It would rightly be seen as an unnecessary and fruitless use of limited resources. The case for keeping these forces there is remarkably weak on the merits, but as we know it can be extremely difficult to overturn the status quo in foreign policy even when the status quo is bankrupt.