| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Patience is Wearing Thin |
| 2006-07-20 |
| By Victor Davis Hanson The conventional wisdom is that the United States is so tied down that it can't do much about the rocket attacks on Israel, the blatant sponsorship of terrorists by Iran and Syria, or the Iranian nuclear program. Oil prices are already sky-high. Any unilateral American action might disrupt tight global supplies. That would derail the economies of our Western allies and only further enrich enemies with windfall profits. Trying to win hearts and minds for the fragile democracy in Iraq also means we can't afford to offend Arab sensitivities elsewhere. And a lame-duck George Bush, low in the polls and facing uncertain congressional elections this fall, certainly doesn't want to involve the American taxpayer with more costly commitments abroad. But despite that sound conventional wisdom, an exasperated West is running out of choices in the Middle East. For years, the Arab world clamored for the Israel "problem" to be solved. Then peace and security would at last supposedly reshape the Middle East. The Western nations understood the "problem" as being Israeli retention of lands it had captured in Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and Lebanon after defeating a series of Arab forces bent on destroying the Jewish state. But after the Israeli departure from Sinai, Gaza and Lebanon, and billions of dollars in American aid to Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians, there is still not much progress toward peace. Past Israeli magnanimity was seen as weakness. Now Israel's reasoned diplomacy has earned it another round of kidnapping, ransom and rocket attacks. Finally, the world is accepting that the Middle East problem was never about so-called occupied land -- but only about the existence of Israel itself. Hezbollah and Hamas, and those in their midst who tolerate them (or vote for them), didn't so much want Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza as pushed into the Mediterranean altogether. And since there will be no second Holocaust, the Israelis may well soon transform a perennial terrorist war that they can't easily win into a conventional aerial one against a terrorist-sponsoring Syria that they can. For its part, the United States has spent thousands of lives and billions in treasure trying to birth democracy in Iraq. We wished to end our old cynical support for Middle East dictators that earned us such scorn and instead give liberated Iraqis a choice other than either theocracy or autocracy. In multilateral fashion, America has also welcomed the help of the European Union, the United Nations, China and Russia in convincing the Iranians of the folly of producing nuclear weapons. But like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran does not wish to parley -- just as the beheaders and kidnappers in Iraq don't, either. The two most liberal societies in Europe -- Denmark and the Netherlands -- welcomed almost anyone to their shores from the Middle East. Their multicultural hospitality was supposed to have led to a utopian "diverse" nation of various races, nationalities and religions. Instead, such liberality has earned both small nations pariah status in the Muslim world for the supposed indiscretions of a few freewheeling filmmakers and cartoonists. Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists -- from Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle -- don't understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands, does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would? Perhaps nothing. What then would be the new Western approach to terrorism? Hard and quick retaliation -- but without our past concern for nation-building, or offering a democratic alternative to theocracy and autocracy, or even worrying about whether other Muslims are unfairly lumped in with Islamists who operate freely in their midst. Any new policy of retaliation -- in light both of Sept. 11 and the messy efforts to birth democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank -- would be something of an exasperated return to the old cruise-missile payback. Yet in the new world of Iranian nukes and Hezbollah missiles, the West would hit back with something far greater than a cruise missile. If they are not careful, a Syria or Iran really will earn a conventional war -- not more futile diplomacy or limited responses to terrorism. And history shows that massive attacks from the air are something that the West does well. So in the meantime, let us hope that democracy prevails in Iraq, that our massive aid is actually appreciated by the Middle East, that diplomacy ultimately works with Iran, that Syria quits supporting terrorists, and that Hamas and Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel -- more for all their sakes than ours. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #7 Losing, huh? By what definition, Howard? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-07-20 21:01 |
| #6 I've read almost every word VDH has ever written. He should stick to his forté, Classics, where his contributions are useful and stimulating. Unfortunately, almost every prediction he has made about the Middle East for the last four years has been wrong. He told us in the first year of the Iraq confllict that "victory" would come "soon." Four years later and still waiting for victory, Vic. Not that he (or anyone on this website) has ever bothered to define "victory" in any meaningful terms. He formerly intoned that the rising military and civilian carnage was akin to the bloody final days of WWII. Well by this relative chronological point in in WWII, every single member of the Axis was firmly on the run. In contrast, Iraq looks to end up as one or more warring Islamic fundamentalist mini-states. North Korea is lobbing missiles over Japan and Iran is a hair's breadth away from getting the bomb. If the war on terrorism, in good Clauzewitzian form, is actually an instrument of foreign policy, WE ARE LOSING by any measurable criterion. If we were going to do this, we should have taken a look at how successful occupations of formerly fascist powers work - massive infantry footprint (remember Shinseki's 500,000?) and generation-long presence. That's how it worked in Japan and Germany and they had an established history of parliamentary government! The British transformation of India took much longer (almost a century) due to a lack of that indigenous experience. But in the case of Iraq, this would require a draft in the US and that's the last thing anyone wants. Even VDH doesn't have the stomach or inclination for that! VDH was also among those who thought the Iraqis would 'welcome us with roses and kisses.' He should have consulted his beloved Greek Historians first: "Nomos (customary practice) is King," (Herodotos) and 'what people really want isn't freedom, but to be left to their own political system' (Thucydides) afford little consolation for those who think that 1200 years of Arab authoritarianism can be transformed in a short period. Democracy is largely an epiphenomenon of institutions (nomoi), and institutions/customs like equal justice under law, pluralism, and secularism in government do not just spring full blown from the head of Zeus . Democracy is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary. Please send any resoponding post to my email as well. Cheers, |
| Posted by: gonzomema 2006-07-20 19:48 |
| #5 While I have some agreement, other parts I take issue with. For instance my long-term axioms: 1) The big military issue for the US since 1991 is the possibility of war with China. Start from the assumption that we (both sides) have been planning elaborate worldwide strategies for years now. One of the biggest contests between us is for resources, especially oil. A recent twist is that India might get into a fight with China first. 2) Iran is in the same position as pre WWII Japan. It should be an economic power, but it wants to dominate not by commerce, but militarily. 3) Iraq is at the center of things on the far side of the world. Africa, Europe, the ME and Central Asia. To have strategic bases there would be like a supersized aircraft carrier as far as the US is concerned. Now, this being said, I suspect that the Iraqi democracy will survive. We have almost finished creating a military and police for them capable of not just handling internal problems, but defending their country in a conventional war against Iran. If they can obtain an air force, ballistic missile defenses, and heavy mechanized forces, they could actually beat Iran. So Iran is now starting up unconventional nonsense here, there and elsewhere. Lebanon, Gaza and WB, Somalia, Bosnia, and probably even in SE Asia. All with the intent of dividing the west in so many fronts that they ignore Iran until it has its bomb. But Iran really has no grasp of how very powerful the great militaries of the planet are. It thinks its pitiful forces are equal to the US, Russia, and China, and better than everybody else. It thinks its ballistic missiles are undefeatable. And that its strategy will overwhelm us. But so far, Israel has stymied Gaza and Lebanon, and its military still has plenty of chutzpah. It could fight Syria right now, too. No problem. Just Israel. Whether it can get over itself enough to stop the nonsense for good, however, is questionable. But Hezbollah and Hamas are going to be a LOT worse for wear. The US and its allies keep getting stronger, not weaker, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US is rebuilding its military might, not being drained in a (laughable) "quagmire". Our military industrial complex is not just fulfilling the needs of the military, but innovating and building *new* weapons systems in "emergency production", like THAAL. Diplomatically, we are patience itself, because we are laying diplomatic groundwork everywhere, and in a masterful manner. When push comes to shove, Iran will be cut off from its friends, and upset that its oil manipulations won't matter at all. As annoying as it is, it not only saves American lives, but it accomplishes our war goals before even a shot is fired. We want to win even before that first shot is fired, if possible. Everywhere, the Iranians should meet "lose-lose" scenarios and closed doors. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-20 16:26 |
| #4 I think it was a good article and the Muslim world would be wise to heed his words. I don't agree that all Muslims are a bunch of sandmonkeys that want to kill their neighbors. They have good people who just want to live their lives and bad people who go around stirring up trouble for short-sighted political gain or perverse personal satisfaction just like we do. I've said it a million times already, but I'll say it again - they are little different than our leftists who may not go around beheading people, but are actively cheering those who do. The problem with the Middle East is that so many of them are illiterate and their religion appeals to man's worse nature - rather than to his better nature as Judeo/Christian values do. Revenge, humiliation, blame and intolerance are the values they preach. It's why their once enlightened societies haven't moved forward from the 7th century. I take hope in a piece I read on LGF today (from Real Clear Politics (I think) stating that there is still a brief window of time when level headed nations can come together and put an end to this with minimal bloodshed instead of all out war. I hope that's right - because if they don't, it's going to get very ugly, very soon because there is just no other way it can go. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-20 15:40 |
| #3 This is not going to end well. Yes, it will. The intermediate term will get very ugly. But in the end, all will be well. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-20 11:21 |
| #2 Professor Hanson's last paragraph sets forth his hopes for the ME. I prefer to frame his hopes as questions. In the foreseeable future: Will democracy (western style) prevail in Iraq ? (Not likely.) Will massive US aid to the ME be appreciated? (No, never.) Will diplomacy work with Iran? (No, never.) Will Syria stop supporting terrorists? (No.) Will Hamas and Hezbollah stop firing rockets and missles into Israel? (No, never.) Hanson says Western patience may be wearing thin. I wish that was true, but I don't think it is. In order to extinguish the threat posed by islam to the West (indeed, to the world) we'll need more allies then we currently have. The "elites" of Western Civilization have not yet shown they grasp or recognize the threat posed to the world by islam. Far too many of those in power (those who currently govern us), those who influence those who govern us, fail to acknowledge the truth: islam is the root source/cause of the problem. This is not going to end well. My young duaghter, my god-children, my nieces and nephews, the children of my friends and their children will inherit an ugly world in the not too distant future all because we adults dithered while there was still time to push islam back from the borders of civilization. Muslims will not police themselves. Muslims resent the suggestion that they need to police themselves. Muslims believe they have the perfect religion handed to them straight from their god through his perfect messanger. Muslims will not change. Muslims expect everyone else to change to fit the Muslim way of existence. An objective description of islam is: a violent, intolerant polictical ideology pretending to be a religion. I will cast my vote in support of the politician who states this truth. Meanwhile, I will arm myself in anticipation of the next civil war. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-07-20 10:55 |
| #1 Clearly, Professor Hanson has read our own Dave D.'s list of options. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-07-20 08:55 |