No Justice, No peace...
In the process of writing an "I agree" comment to Stalin's entry, I realized that I'm not sure I do. And since unlike Stalin, I'm not a follower, I decided to start a new thread.
Here's the hard part. I do agree with Israel on this one, sort of. I agree in the sense that every nation must protect it's citizens, period. Given today's tools, strategies, thoughts, and environment, they get to invade a state that sponsors terrorist action against them. The question is, is it the right move? For a parallel, I turn to US/Iraq/Afghanistan. If you take the view that we invaded Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks, then let's review. 9/11 saw about 3000 US casualties, Iraq (2,539 dead and 39,050 injured)/Afgahanistan (308/924) wars are more costly in that sense. Also, cost to date of the two wars is projected to hit $811 billion. Factor in the severe damage that the Iraq war is causing to US relationships, image, and negotiations, the question is, was it the best path? Furthermore, even if it was, it certainly is not repeatable, something N.Korea figured out early, and Iran and potentially Pakistan have also discovered. So what we do next time? Same for Israel.
Before, I move on, a quick aside. It's the unique nature of terrorism, and state sponsored terrorism, that make it such a difficult problem. Let's imagine Ihateamericaistan is a state sponsor of the stupidjackass terrorism group. The citizens of Ihateamericaistan really have nothing to do with greater US Ihateamericaistan relations, nor do they have any say over what the government does, and in fact, they may be neutral or even like the US. Yet in order to protect US interests, the US invades Ihateamericaistan. The citizens bear the brunt of that attack, and does this turn neutral/favorable Ihateamericaistani's into pro or anti US types, and are they more or less willing to help the terrorists they previously had nothing to do with? This is the dillemma facing Israel. In order to stop state sponsored terrorism, they have to kill/injure lots of civillians, giving the survivors a real reason to hate Israel and help the terrorists, and to continue to support their dictator in his quest to rid the region of Israel. Terrorists may actually do more damage in creating no-win situations for their targets than actual physical damage against them. In its best day, Al Qaeda could not have imagined the damage that their attack caused the US, not in bringing down the towers, but in everything that happened after. I've said in the past this is a conflict about ideals, not land. I'm starting to think that winning it will be mental not physical as well. How do we beat the position they put us in?
So what to do. I don't have a good answer, but I know a crummy situation when I see it, and Israel and the US are in crummy situations. What if the US spent $811 billion in finding a substitute to oil? Taking away the funds that support terrorists, and the political leverage that Iran has because it supplies a crucial part of our lives may help. Not only would it starve Iran of the funds to support terrorsts and keep its citizens at bay, but it would free the US to act without fear of losing the economic, strategic, and stability benifits that oil provides. Or is the answer in just air attacking sites in the state that sponosors terrorists, and not enganging in a ground war? Do you assasinate foreign leaders? I don't know. My point is that the debate aroudn Iraq isn't was it good v. was it bad, it's not two dimentional. Just as you can't view Israel in should it v. shouldn't it in regards to Lebanon. I get what they did, and mostly support it. However, what all free nations need is a repeatable tool for dealing with terrorists hiding in other nations.
It's not invasion, so what is it?
Posts
6 comments:
Israel's recent strikes, unlike the U.S. invasion of Iraq, are a just--if not ideal--response to years of provocation. There is nothing for them to lose, either in a Middle East that by and large refuses to acknowledge their nation's right to exist, or in Europe, which wants oil cheap and at the expense of the lives of Israelis, whom you rightfully acknowledge must be Israel's top priority.
Kudos, however, to the German chancellor for this, which in a truly just world would go without saying:
". . . she suggested [Israel and Hezbollah] do not share equal blame, repeatedly noting that the violence began with the soldiers' capture.
'I think that one needs to be careful to make a distinction between the root causes and the consequences of something.'"
What they do "next time" is not a luxury they can afford in a world that, here and now, hates them, and continues to tolerate the minority willing to end it all for a drop of Jewish blood.
Israel did what it had to do. But sometimes what you have to do is still a losing move. Israel's choices are winnowed down to bad and bad. If they ever want to get out of that "next time" is actually crucial. Right now Israel is the regional power backed by a global superpower that is able and willing to help. That may change going forward, and if/when it does Israel could be in real trouble. As a quick aside, Taiwan is facing a similar concern. Their only source of protection from China is the US. What happens to Taiwan if the US decides that it actually doesn't want to protect Taiwan come crunch time? Same for Israel. At some point the US may be faced with a question of ability or will to defend Israel. What if the US blinks?
Israel is in a region where no one wants them, backed by a power that everyone wants to see weakened. Thus Israel is not only under physical pressure, but its a pawn in a much larger global game. Invasion, stop, repeat hasn't brought them real help in 60+ years.
So the question is this, "What can Israel do to position itself so that its not faced with nothing but bad choices?" The current cycle is protect self by harming innocent civilians, creating more people that actively work to harm you, creating a need to attack, harming more civilians, etc. The reason why next time matters is that at some point, Israel will lose. They are on an inevitable path to their own destruction. The only thing that matters today to Israeli safety is action, but if they don't jump ahead of the curve, they're in real trouble.
Think of it like a chess game. There comes a point where even if you do everything perfectly, make the exact right move, you will still lose.
The trick is to not get to that point, or to change the rules of the game.
The nature of war is that it is a brutal business with steep costs. UBlo is absolutely correct to say that it doesn't solve every problem. So he asks what are you getting for your investment...
You get consequences if you are the antagonist. If Lebanon and Syria are allowed to host criminals everyone is less safe. If Saddam were allowed to give the world the middle finger as it sheepishly asked him to comply with sanctions everyone is less safe. Without consequences you get no compliance.
You also put the proper people under the burden. When you join the military you know your job is to fight and be fought. When you go to work in NYC you do not. A violent world is the norm, peace is the anomoly. The military understands this. I think equating civilian and military casualties to determine utility is a mistake.
Muscles is right that Israel has nothing to lose in these strikes. They tried restraint and it lead to contempt, just as the US did through the 90's. Striking back is the only logical thing they could have done even given UBlo's correct assessment that there will be some negative consequences.
Even if Israel is on an inevitable path to its own distruction (every individual certainly is so why not every country too?) that doesn't mean fighting is futile. At least you can kick all the way to the slaughterhouse.
The Middle East ain't the Kobayashi Maru; it's the same as it ever was: Risk, and the U.S. would sooner see Britain burn than "blink" in any Israeli end game. Israel is in a region no one wants them but us, now more than ever.
It's a cycle, yeah, and it's ugly, but Israel'll ride it, and never alone. Taiwan's value to us is archaically symbolic; Israel's is immediately and enduringly strategic.
"Kobayashi Maru" THAT's what I was trying to think of. Nice one.
Here we go. First, I want to say again, I'm no hippie "make love not war type." There are times when war is the answer, think Japan after Pearl Harbor. My point is that when someone has strength, they tend to shut their brain off. It certainly looks like Israel needed to strike. My point is that it's starting to look like rinse, lather, repeat. Israel has struck in the past and has gained no lasting peace. Philosophically, what do they need to do to break out of the cycle that I think leads to the distruction of Israel? Maybe rather than stopping after causing damage, they should just go ahead an conquer their neighbors, just take over Syria and make it a colony. Somehow, Israel must find a way to change the rules or the game.
I disagree that it puts pressure on the right people. The civiilans bear the brunt of all these Mid East conflicts, and few of them can make the jump that "Ahmed died from an Israeli rocket, but it's our leaders fault for harboring terrorists so I don't blame Israel." The attacks only create more enemies, creating more need for attacks, their's no finality jsut escalation. War has to have an end or its wasted, or worse only grows. I'm of the mind that Israel should create that finality by making Syria, for example, surrender. This creates the pressure. Otherwise these leaders just use the lives of their people has fodder. What we did right in Iraq was toppling leadership.
Also Stlain, if you want to compare civilian casualties, the link that shows our military casualties also has numbers on Iraqi and Afghani civilian casualties. Granted they're not US civilians, but they are civilians none-the-less. I suppose you could say "better them than us" but that doesn't make me feel real warm inside. And without dragging "why we went to war with Iraq" into this, I'm fairly certain we didn't spend $811 billion and 2,500 casualties to enforce UN sanctions. At least I hope not.
Muscles, I can think of a very real scenario by which we let Israel down. Imangine Iran, the real puppet master in the region (I often wonder what today would look like if we invaded Iran instead), developes nukes and a delivery system that can hit the US. Would we "absolutely" or "maybe" defend Israel in a Mid-East flare up if we thought it would cost 10's of millions of US lives in a nuclear attack? Even without a delivery system, if I was Israel I wouldn't bet the farm on US aid. In the end, every nation protects its own and a US president would pause under threat of nuclear attack. This is my point, at every iteration of this rinse, lather, repeat strategy, the stakes get higher. Maybe you're right, the US would rahter see London burn than lose Israel, but would it rather see NYC burn? Lot's can distract the US, a depression, other conflicts abroad, another terrorist attack, etc. I hate to say it, but viewing the way US leadership and many citizens caved on the USC after 9/11, I'm not convinced that under either the threat of attack, or actual attack "because of" our relationship with Israel, that the US comes to its aid. I'm afraid we would hear a lot of talk like, "Not a lot of jews in America, and it's their mess. Why should we risk US lives?" The do anything to keep me safe crowd has a loud voice.
Brains over brawn fellas. Nothing either Isreal or th US is doing is moving towards a solution. It's all buying time, but for what? We have to get ahead of this. I just think we need to sneak in the night before and rewire the game.
Post a Comment