Talking About Terror
By David Brooks
The New York Times
Washington is full of conversations, but occasionally you have one with a policy maker that sheds light on where we’ve been and where we’re going. I had one of those conversations late last week, and I thought it might be useful to share a truncated version of it here.
Policy Maker: Israel began this war with an almost unprecedented level of legitimacy. Unfortunately, that was forfeited during the first days with the bombing campaign, which seemed to punish all of Lebanon instead of just Hezbollah. If Sharon were still functioning, perhaps he would have insisted on a better plan, but this may be another case of a just war poorly executed.
Me: But wasn’t this war a test case of whether it is even possible to defeat a terrorist force with military might? After all, no army is going to know this kind of enemy better than Israel’s. Maybe the Islamists have simply come up with a conceptual breakthrough that makes them difficult to defeat. They’ve grasped that the more they endanger their own people and get them killed, the better it is for them politically. Israel or the U.S. gets blamed. That’s like a superweapon in the media war.
Has Israel at least degraded Hezbollah militarily?
P: Not enough to give them the sense they’re being defeated. In any case, we’ve worked out an arrangement with France that should stop the fighting early next week. This may sound odd, but U.S. relations with France have hardly been better. We’re working remarkably closely across a whole range of Middle East issues because we have the same understanding and goals.
In Lebanon there will be a truce that will leave the current armies in place (which the Israelis won’t like). Then we can insert an international force. We won’t be able to disarm Hezbollah but we may be able to help the Lebanese Army secure the border.
The thing to understand is that the international force may never materialize. The key is Hezbollah. If they decide to harvest their gains by becoming a peaceful player in the Lebanese government, then the international force can come in. But if they decide to destabilize the government and turn Lebanon into a host for their war with Israel then there’ll be no force. Israel would have to find a way to withdraw at a time of its own choosing. But if Hezbollah keeps fighting it will have accepted responsibility for breaking the international deal, and Israel will have greater freedom to act.
M: Is it possible to flip Syria?
P: The U.S. and others have channels open to Syria, but its interest diverges from ours. Its interest is the increased weakness of the Lebanese government.
The wider situation is that most governments around Israel no longer want war. But the governments are weak, so terror armies can form within those states. If Israel tries to attack those armies, it ends up weakening the central governments it is trying to bolster. That’s the dilemma.
The U.S. and Europe would like to strengthen those central governments. We don’t have a policy of externally imposed regime change. We’re trying to create conditions to allow those governments to make better decisions and make slow progress toward freedom. But Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah want to hollow out those moderate governments from within.
The first group of Islamists like Al Qaeda have utopian agendas. But Iran and Hezbollah have more realistic agendas, more indigenous support and are thus more dangerous. Think of the way early 20th-century anarchists in Europe led eventually to the Nazis and Leninists.
M: So what is the U.S. doing?
P: The U.S. is trying to be at the center of a group of like-minded countries that want to preserve the viability of governments that prefer peaceful evolution to violent revolution.
We’re part of a united front on Iranian nukes. The odds are there will be sanctions against Iran by the end of the year, though how strong I don’t know. We’re trying to build a successful government in Iraq. We have to get out from under the blow to our authority caused by the torture and detainee issues. And we have to get aggressive on the Palestinian problem. That’s essential to strengthen moderate regimes.
We’re not going to be spending as much blood or treasure as over the past few years. We have to make up for it with diplomacy backed by a hint of steel.
Photo credit: David Brooks. (The New York Times)
Technorati tags: David Brooks, The New York Times, Middle East, Politics, Government, Foreign Policy, International Relations, news, commentary, op ed
2 comments:
What would you do if you were the president now, concerning the situation between Israel and Hizballa?
Good question. If I were president, I would have won the election by pledging a new direction and embracing a new vision for the U.S., one based on bringing the world together for the benefit of all people, not just the people of the U.S. The problem with the current policies of the U.S. is that they are one-sided, designed to benefit elitists in the U.S. -- at the expense of the rest of the world and most U.S. citizens.
The value the current US administration puts on human life is at the lowest point in history. Our priorities must credibly change before we can effectively deal with the Mideast--or any other--crisis in the world.
Once that is done, the solution lies in working with all parties involved in the region, including Iran, Syria, Hisbollah and Hamas -- calling for a committment to end hostilities in the region, a committment to work together to address the concerns of all, and a committment to fashioning and upholding a peace agreement designed to mutually benefit the people in the region.
Such an agreement would require compromises from all sides and would not be easy. It would necessitate that the most powerful nations in the world be committed to achieving peace in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world and be committed to routing out any non-nation groups committed to terrorism and destruction of innocents. It would also require that we work to end the threat of nuclear weapons by once again engaging others in non-nuclear proliferation treaties. Importantly, it would require that the U.S. adhere to the same demands they put on other nuclear nations. If we want Iran to give up her nuclear ambitions, why should they -- if we don't do the same?
Such an agreement would require that the Palestinian problem be addressed -- finally -- and that grievances from both Israeli's and Palestinians be given equal weight. It would require that Israel look into its soul and live up to its potential -- to be a welcoming place for people of all faiths and nationalities. The Zionist question, which many believe (myself included) has been the most destructive force in Israel and a large part of the reason for growing anti-semitism in the world, must be questioned and debated. Is Israel supremely hypocritical by on the one hand using the holocaust as justification for their actions, saying, "never again," while it is documented that they have been guilty of the inhumane treatment of Palestinians?
The Jewish people cannot have it both ways. Aggression against others does more harm to Israel than it helps -- fairly or unfairly -- by garnering sympathy for those innocents who are killed in the process. Witness the current situation in Lebanon.
The time for one-sided, heavy-handed "negotiations" is over. It may work for the short term, but will never address the crucial, underlying problems of the weaker party, thus continuing the frustrations of that party and encouraging them to resort to guerrilla war.
Obviously, the question you pose is incredibly complicated and cannot be addressed fully here. It also cannot be addressed by substituting a different president for the current one in Washington -- unless the new president can restore American credibility through a new foreign policy that attempts to unite the countries of the world to work together for the good of all. This cannot be achieved overnight, obviously. It also means a gradual wresting of power away from the military/industrial complex and the Federal Reserve of the United States--no small undertaking.
Whew. Not sure my answer did justice to your question, but it's a start.
I welcome comments.
Post a Comment