it's got to the point that israel needs to project raw power to secure a two-state solution.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy in Israel. Promising “a disproportionate response” to Hamas for rocket attacks signals a new direction for Jerusalem. For years they have been on the wrong end of one of the most successful PR juggernauts of recent history – the Palestinians.

Nothing seems to dent the Palestinian love-bubble. The fact that Hamas has been targeting innocent Israelis for years through suicide bombings and rocket attacks seems to mean nothing, the fact that they use human shields means less, the fact that they brutally murder anyone remotely seen as an informer, irrelevant. Hamas has maintained lock-tight control on Gaza in order to further its longstanding total war against Israel. It gets as close as it can to starving its own people into hatred. The constant portrayal of Gazan as victim is incongruous with the fact that most of Hamas leadership has nothing to do with the place. To them maintaining the degradation of the world’s largest refugee camp is a means to an end. 

Meanwhile, Israel, a liberal democracy, gave Hamas plenty of time to stop the missile attacks before they became politically unacceptable. IDF policy is very clear on trying to minimize civilian casualties, and when there are abuses, IDF soldiers are disciplined and tried in closer accordance with the rules of war than in any other democratic country. Israel supplies Gaza despite the hatred coming from there towards the Jewish state. Meanwhile Egypt does nothing, locking down its borders, and providing precious little aid, as it imagines in terror what the Islamist threat from Gaza would mean for their authoritarian government. The rest of the Arab world also talk a good game, but deliver nothing.

The list goes on and on, but nothing that Israel seems to do gets any traction with the world community, and overturn their constant moral equivalency. There are numerous reasons for this. Latent anti-semitism, large Muslim communities in Western States, the disproportionate power of various petro-states keen on stoking the fire of Israeli-Palestinian conflict for their own ends. The Arabism of European diplomatic corps plays a big role too. Israel has made blunders, but the bar is set so high for them, and the scrutiny so great by sniping British and French journalists that it’s hard not to.

There’s nothing new about this – but there might be something very new about Israel’s approach to the barrage.

Olmert and Livni, two pretty moderate polticians, seem to have decided that Israel will no longer compete for goodwill from Europe. And if that’s true, they’re right. Courting Europe is a lost cause. As long as Israel doesn’t engage in independently verifiable rather than Palestinian-only reported excesses, then with America’s constant support, Europe is simply not a relevant part of their equation. They can do without it.

Israel’s future is on the line, and strategically the ‘no more Mr. Nice Guy’ approach makes far more sense. The demographic clock is ticking there, and in fifty years or so, they will have to abandon democracy in its purest form, unless they have created a two-state solution. It is more imperative than ever. This was the realization that created the new Sharon, who’s untimely departure from the scene led to a major strategy vacuum, until now.

Palestinian power is a chimera. All they have is PR. The Palestinians go with their strength (and don’t get me wrong, rocket attacks are part of the PR machine), and so should Israel. To get that two-state solution Israel must be seen as an immovable force, negotiating from a position of raw power rather than weakness. Unless the Palestinians become afraid that Israel will never relinquish control of its own state to an Arab majority, they will never opt for a two-state solution.

Share on Facebook

saigon 1975. will it be different when we leave Iraq?

Ivan Watson, NPR’s Baghdad Correspondent was the target of an assassination attempt today when he and his team were nearly killed by a car bomb. And in recent weeks there has clearly been a spike in violence in Iraq. Let nobody say that the situation that war-torn country is anything close to peaceful.

And yet the next President is going to withdraw our troops. Not in victory, or in defeat, but ‘believing’ and ‘hoping’ that peace will break out when we’re gone. That’s a bet many wouldn’t make.

Obama staked his early rise to prominence on a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, and superficially, facts on the ground seem to bear him out. He’s committed to a “safe and responsible” withdrawal of US troops around sixteen months from taking office. He has the support of the Maliki government, and the vast majority of the Iraqi people want us gone. The Status of Forces agreement which mandates our withdrawal by the end of 2001 also provides us with some political cover too.

So what’s the problem? Simple. When we leave, there is simply no way we won’t be leaving a power vacuum in Iraq. The myriad of competing interests have been well documented. Everyone wants their piece of the place. Kurds just want a chunk to help them build Kurdistan, while the Sunnis want their power back, and the Shiites still want revenge on the Sunnis, and make sure they don’t get their hands on any oil power. Then we have the Jihadists, the Iranians, and the rest of the Arab world keeping a close eye on developments. Violence continues to bubble, and the opportunities for inciting sectarian violence seem wide open. And keeping everything from going totally haywire. Us. Until the end of 2001 that is.

Let’s talk about two word “safety” and “responsibly”. The safety of our troops is easy to ensure. Keep them on base and stop sending them on patrol. But ‘responsible’ withdrawal is another matter entirely. Assuming that what Obama means by withdrawal is minimizing the risk of a flare-up after we’re outta there, it’s simply impossible to predict the future in Iraq with any degree of certainty, but the signs don’t look good. Controlling the chaos of Iraqi factionalism without the help of a first-class policing, intelligence, and political system will be impossible. It also requires a vibrant economy, accountability, social harmony, common values, and control of borders. Iraqi’s score on all these. Zippo.

Redeveloping Iraq was an idea that we’ve essentially dropped. During the campaign Obama made a big deal about Iraq’s $80 billion dollar budget surplus that should be used for its own redevelopment. He knows the American people aren’t going to be bankrolling them anymore. Instead, we’re leaving it up to them, and that ain’t gonna work. Most of the money would disappear into the pockets of officialdom, and infrastructure projects would languish as they are now, with US protection. The Sunni Awakening is on the Iraqi Government payroll, but that could change, and with it would go their cooperation with the Shiite dominated government. So barring the rise of some kind of Iraqi Tito, and nobody that fits the bill seems to be in the neighborhood, the place will quite simply still be a potential tinderbox when we go.

When we leave, you can be sure the Iraqi factions will all behave and wish us bon voyage. They don’t want any last minute delays on our departure. It will be glorious (and very unlike our helicopter-bound theatrics in Saigon in 1975). The media will make a game attempt to paper over the cracks of our flawed strategy. One can just imagine the headlines. “Countdown to Departure From Iraq”, “Baghdad Waits for Last Americans To Leave”, “Leaving With Dignity”, “All Calm A Week After We’re Gone – Obama Declares Withdrawal A Success”. “US Gone For Three Months. All is Quiet”.

It might take a day, a week, a month, a year. But the following headlines are just as possible without our grunts to stem the bleeding. “Iraqi Electricity Grid Grinds to Halt”, “Sadr City Besieged By Iraqi Army”, “Karbala Pilgrims Targeted Again”, “Iraqi Army Retreats From Basra”, “Golden Mosque Is Hit Again”, “Maliki Escapes Assassination Attempt”. “Suicide Bomber kills 150 at Election Rally – Sunni Extremists Claim Responsibility”. “Iranian Influence Growing In Iraqi Government.” And the list of possibilities goes on and on.

The US forces will be gone. No more Green Zone. No more Petraeus. The Jihadists will declare victory, and more recruits could easily pour over the border to close the deal. Unemployment, intolerable now, will get worse, and that means that young men could take up arms as insurgents and be back at it. Without the US to rain on his parade, Sadr could rebuild and reinforce his power with Iranian help. And Iraq could once again be on fire.

And if it is, or even if its smouldering and needs a strong hand to intervene, are we going to send boys back? No way. The American People wouldn’t have it, and President Obama might as well hand the keys over to the GOP if he tried it. So instead we’ll just have to watch from the sidelines.

This highly unpalatable possibility will linger for a very long time. It’s a product of the utter stupidity of starting a war that could not be finished, but that mistake will soon recede into history. It will be Obama that faces the music. That is unjust, but his judgment on when we get out will be the defining moment of the American experience in Iraq.

Obama seems like a cautious man, a responsible man, but when it comes to Iraq, there is no way that his call for responsibility can alleviate the risk of departure caused by Bush’s utter lack of it.

Share on Facebook