Our Plans for this War
The New Yorker has been excellent about breaking news on the Administration's war plans for Iran. Chilling. But will we resist such a war? What are the stakes?
Also, look at what Nasrallah said about Olmert and Peretz. Hezbollah was expecting a "weak" response from Israel, for a short retaliation which would not hurt their operational capacities in any way. Nasrallah himself thus admits that his organization--backed by Iran and Syria--is not one to be negotiated with. Critics in the West often forget that Islamic militant organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.) have always relied upon a perception of American and Western unwillingness to respond in force--Western "weakness" or "softness"--to allow them space within which to conduct terror operations. This, of course, does not give the West free hand to shatter this preception by brutal and violent campaigns. However, it should be recognized that Hezbollah is a military organization, not a legitimate political organization or nation-state with which straight-forward negotiation makes any sense. When your enemy, whose explicit goal is to destroy you completely, relies on your weakness to hit you, how can you respond? We cannot forget the ethos of violence that motivates such groups. Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000 has given Hezbollah time to rearm in frightening proportions while the UN stood-by and watched. I will never cease to believe that war and violence are perversions of humanity, but what good does talk of peace do to one committed to your destruction, whose religious convictions hold that you must die? Remember, this is not the PLO anymore. Secular resistance to Israel is turning into militant Islamic resistance--whether by Sunni Hamas or Shiite Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, Israel's response is turning into a strategic failure with high civilian cauasalties. Is this inevitably the outcome of this Administration's military fiascos (as the article points out, Cheney's war-horse played a large role in planning and supporting the Israeli initiative)? How can we formulate a new set of guidelines by which unnecessary and excessively bloody, albeit limited, warfare appears less like a strategic necessity? How can we ween ourselves from our addiction to air power, which inevitably has bloody consequences? On the other hand, how can we convince the world that sometimes military action against violent, dogmatically motivated and explicitly anti-Western and anti-Israeli groups is necessary?
I do not know how to proceed forward.
Also, look at what Nasrallah said about Olmert and Peretz. Hezbollah was expecting a "weak" response from Israel, for a short retaliation which would not hurt their operational capacities in any way. Nasrallah himself thus admits that his organization--backed by Iran and Syria--is not one to be negotiated with. Critics in the West often forget that Islamic militant organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.) have always relied upon a perception of American and Western unwillingness to respond in force--Western "weakness" or "softness"--to allow them space within which to conduct terror operations. This, of course, does not give the West free hand to shatter this preception by brutal and violent campaigns. However, it should be recognized that Hezbollah is a military organization, not a legitimate political organization or nation-state with which straight-forward negotiation makes any sense. When your enemy, whose explicit goal is to destroy you completely, relies on your weakness to hit you, how can you respond? We cannot forget the ethos of violence that motivates such groups. Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000 has given Hezbollah time to rearm in frightening proportions while the UN stood-by and watched. I will never cease to believe that war and violence are perversions of humanity, but what good does talk of peace do to one committed to your destruction, whose religious convictions hold that you must die? Remember, this is not the PLO anymore. Secular resistance to Israel is turning into militant Islamic resistance--whether by Sunni Hamas or Shiite Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, Israel's response is turning into a strategic failure with high civilian cauasalties. Is this inevitably the outcome of this Administration's military fiascos (as the article points out, Cheney's war-horse played a large role in planning and supporting the Israeli initiative)? How can we formulate a new set of guidelines by which unnecessary and excessively bloody, albeit limited, warfare appears less like a strategic necessity? How can we ween ourselves from our addiction to air power, which inevitably has bloody consequences? On the other hand, how can we convince the world that sometimes military action against violent, dogmatically motivated and explicitly anti-Western and anti-Israeli groups is necessary?
I do not know how to proceed forward.
posted by James at 8:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home