4:01PM
Demonizing Israel will come back to haunt us
Monday, July 31, 2006 at 4:01PM ARTICLE: "Cease-Fire to Nowhere," By David Brooks, The New York Times, July 30, 2006.
Tom writes:
Excellent piece by Brooks. Once we let Israel engage Iran's pre-emptive war against our interests in the region, we need to let nature take its course. Demonizing Israel by making them the implied bad guy in any quickie cease-fire/withdrawal will come back to haunt us by creating the impression that diversionary wars get you off the hook vis-a-vis the U.S. Plus, letting the carnage pile up a bit incentivizes everyone in the region toward some effort better than that simple sit-down in Rome recently that accomplished nada.Best yet, the more intractable Lebanon gets, the quicker Israel moves toward letting a coalitional force ultimately take over security for the entire fence. The sooner that happens, the better, because it facilitates Israel's "one-state" solution, and once that happens, the big red-herring that is the Arab-Israeli conflict is shelved, strategically speaking, and we concentrate the debates on what really needs to change: the Arab/Persian autocracies themselves.
Reader Comments (10)
Point taken, but isn't it painting with rather too broad a brush to call the Arab-Israeli conflict a "red-herring"? True, this particular engagement was most likely catalyzed by Iran's desire to distract, but the underlying reagents are very real. America runs a very big--both morally and strategically--by casting (or seeming to cast) this conflict only in terms of our own foreign relation priorities. The trouble is, we're not in a position to unilaterally define what "the real problem is."
David Rothkopf author of "Running the World" about the history of the NSC calls this a proxy war with Iran. That analogy has some value. Given the Iranian longterm view, the Egyptians and Saudis are right to fear Iranian actions and influence. The problem is that Israel lept before it looked. Israel now is in a bind and so is the US. Time for new strategy. Put our existing troops in Iraq on the border between IRAQ and IRAN (also ask the Kurds for help) and also Lebanon and Syria. Get those obsolete carrier groups moving into the MED and hope the sea-skimming missles don't fly. Tell Turkey it is time to fish and stop cutting bait for alliance with the west. My guess is Attaturk is still alive there and the Turks down deep don't want to return to the 12th Century. Where is the Turkish support for the NATO mission. Let them do that also in Afghanistan. Provide troops to assist the US if necessary so that at least someone speaks some of the language. Time for a strategic squeeze play because Israel and the US are being outfought and outthought by IRAN. We need a credible threat to both Syria and IRAN and let Israel work behind in Lebanon to ruthlessly exterminate HEZBOLLAH. We can't let an ally be constantly subject to rocket attack and take it indefinitely. Imagine if IRAN were nuclear and ballistic missle capable even now. We need to think about mobilizing even if it means the draft because this is no short term effort. If US forces can be a tripwire in Korea for 60 years then we need to be prepared for a long term investment here also. Sorry that we are facing the abyss but it must be faced NOW! There is of course another course. Walk away and conserve our resources for the eventuality of no ISRAEL and no leverage in the middle-east. We better be really working hard on biofuels in that case. Too bad that our policies have left us with few good options, but that is always the price you pay when you decide you can wage war on the cheap. Too bad our military has been ravaged by incompetent leadership-civilian and military. Time to dumpt the current flag rank guys and look for the bright young colonels. If it sounds like 1937-38 it really is. At least the Germans and Japanese were not always suicidal. This makes it tough so the really tough need to get going. We should flat out publically blame IRAN for waging proxy war and deal with them directly. Otherwise the salami tactics (a slice at a time) will eventually kill us and western europe. At least let's go down swinging if that is the verdict of history.
Off the subject.
When I read BFA the first time, I found it naturally compelling, but not with the same sense of narrative excitement I enjoyed with PNM. As in PNM felt like a frantic 'getting up to speed' excercise, while BFA felt more speculative and needing more time to digest.
Now, I am rereading BFA and finding it more in line with this year's Zeitgeist.
Has anyone else had this effect happen??
I think one of the keys to Dr. Barnett's impact is his ability to convey stategic concepts AND capture the Zeitgeist even of non-mil businessy readers like me.
bH
What this whole thing has made so stark to me is the real meaning of war in the information age. For the Pentagon it’s a global network of connectivity from the individual infantryman in the field to all the way up to command. To Hezbollah it’s goading Israel into bombing the local orphanage. Dead kids digitized and sent out over the global network to make all the mothers weep. Doesn’t seem to me like too much of a stretch to imagine that the electorate of the western democracies that can win this war, are falling right into the trap of the terrorist strategy. Or if you listen to much BBC World Service you might describe it as sprinting to dive into the abyss of the terrorist strategy.
TPMB - I think that Israel is going to be remarkably gun shy, fearing another UNIFIL. I can see them doing a coalition force on the fence for limited periods that have to be renewed by the Knesset but no more.
GregtheGreg - Every time this sort of sob story emotional manipulation via war crime (when Hezbollah sticks its arms in places and manners designed to provoke civilian casualties, it is a war crime) a small percentage of the public all over the Core wises up and becomes immune. The good scenario is that we'll keep our souls and just switch to alternate information sources. The bad scenario has us losing our souls and giving up on the laws of war ourselves.
Even though I have to admit I would root for Israel's team against Lebanon's or Iran's in any soccer match (because they are so many great scientist/thinkers from Israel and its dispora), I have trouble agreeing with the sentiment and logic here.
Let's assume you guys are right that "Hezbollah ""goading"" Israel into bombing the local orphanage" (which is quite groundless, but Hezbollah did use villages and cities as shelter), is bombing indiscriminately the only solution? can't we be more creative in finding a better solution toward such tactic?
I don’t believe that Israel is bombing indiscriminately. Their generals might not be the greatest ever, but I don’t think they are that poor. And the “goading” issue is “grounded” by the fact that Israel says Hezbollah was operating out of Qana. I believe them. They could be lying, governments lie, but I have more reason to accept the word of Israel over Hezbollah who I agree with the United States government (and disagree with the E.U.) is a terrorist organization. They may be considered a well armed militia as well, but the war they wage is very much an asymmetrical one. Basing operations in ways that get civilians killed matches perfectly with asymmetrical tactics. And why shouldn’t they use these tactics? From their point of view, these are perfectly legitimate methods of waging what they believe to be a just war. I don’t know why anyone continues to believe that they play by the same rules as us. Are there solutions other than using bombs to destroy as much of Hezbollah as necessary to allow France & Co. to move in? No.
i don't dispute hezbollah chose to mix with the civilian village as camouflage, and that is arguably immoral as well. i also believe israel tried to limit its damage to civilians, but the question is how hard they tried.
but then the russian guerilla against Nazi, and American pilot who landed in China after Doolittle Raid also hid within the civilian. Does this mean Nazi and the Japanese Imperial Army had the right to kill civilians to wipe out the camouflage? i think the problem here is whether hezbollah hide into the civilian wihtout their consent, or the civilian willingly protect them.
if it is the latter, israel's strategy has already failed. it is impossible to rid hezbollah unless you send all these civilians to gas chamber. is israel ready to do that?
moral is not my concern here. i am concerned about backfiring and that this is not the optimal solution (and might be a bad solution), the failure of such will widen the gap.
is there alternative (and better) solution? it depends on whether you are willing to use your brain, and how hard you use it. i am sure there are enough bright minds in israel.
example?
1) http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/israel-and-its-enemies-good-tactics.html
"The only meaningful strategic goal here for Israel was the total demilitarization of Hezbollah, an objective that coincided with the national interests of not just the U.S. but that of France, and therefore, in a languidly trailing and desultory way, the EU. The key to that objective was Syria, not Lebanon, and making the hapless and ineffectual Lebanese government instead of the "strong", generally unpopular and very "targetable" Syrian regime the focus of Israeli wrath - followed by real negotiations of things Damascus is interested in talking about - was a mistake. Carrots and sticks. Much more efficient use of Israeli political capital than bombing Lebanon or engaging in bloody house to house fighting in the Bekaa ( the only way to actually root out Hezbollah's fighters). A better route for Israel to have taken if it wanted an EBO campaign.
And of course, in five or six years, if Nasrallah were to have an accident, by then Israel will probably only be one of the suspected culprits. Perhaps not even at the top of the list."
2) a former israel colonel also proposed twice to sharon and ohmert for a plan to deal with hezbollah earlier but were rejected (i forgot the link but would post it when i find it)
these might not be the best solution, but surely better than what ohmert is using today. the problem with ohmert? the defense ministry need to vote on what to do tomorrow! this is a clear demonstration of the lack of a strategy.
The Nazis and the Japanese, being the aggressors, didn’t have the right to do anything they did. Did the U.S. and U.K. have the right to kill as many German civilians as they possibly could just for the sake of demoralization? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? In the twilight zone, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, [plug in your evil empire], all suddenly and brutally launch total war against the rest of the world? What would we to do to save ourselves? The world of WWII is a long way from here.
Syrian regime the focus of Israeli wrath? Maybe that would’ve worked. But Israel’s strategy can be effective and give incentive to at least the French and E.U. if not (alas) the U.S. to engage Syria in some heavy diplomacy, because where ZenPundit asked what if Hezbollah started launching rockets from north of Beirut, that’s when the French led coalition is supposed to show us their stuff and they would not at all enjoy having to take on the role Israel currently has.
here is the other solution, which was actually proposed by ex-IDF General.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,429341,00.html
Eiland: I suggested a package deal which was to be presented by the international community -- by the Middle East quartet, for example. I had good reason to believe that the United States, United Nations and France would support it. We could not merely demand the implementation of UN resolution 1559 and the disarmament of the Hezbollah. In order to get the consent of the Lebanese government, Israel also had to make concessions -- like the release of Lebanese prisoners -- to stop the flights into Lebanese airspace and to agree to a redemarcation of the border between Israel and Lebanon.