Middle East: The Myth of
Strategic Supremacy
Sat Jul 29, 2006 23:15
The Myth of Strategic Supremacy
by Patrick Seale Released: 29 Jul 2006
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=997
America’s total support for Israel’s war in Lebanon is both alarming and mystifying. How can it be explained? Ties of sentiment undoubtedly play a part, as does the work of the hydra-headed Jewish Lobby in convincing Washington opinion that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical and that they face the same enemy in the shape of ‘Islamic terrorism.’
Mention must also be made of the important role of the ubiquitous neocons, both inside and outside the Bush administration, in shaping American foreign policy in a pro-Israeli direction.
But this does not seem enough to account for the unconditional alignment of the United States on Israel, for its refusal to demand an immediate ceasefire, for the hurried despatch to Israel of still more American weapons, and for the whole thrust of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy which is directed at ensuring Israel’s victory and the defeat and disarmament of its enemies, notably Hizballah.
The cost of this policy has already been enormous: Lebanon’s entire civilian infrastructure has been shattered, more than 600 of its citizens killed, nearly a million displaced, the whole amounting to a massive national and humanitarian catastrophe. On the other side, some 40 Israelis have been killed, many more wounded by Hizballah rocket attacks, and very considerable damage and disruption inflicted on the economy and on people’s lives, especially in northern Israel.
The indirect costs are also very great. Hate for Israel is now so widespread and deep-seated as to put in doubt its long-term acceptance in the region. America’s reputation in the Arab and Muslim world has been tremendously degraded, with dangerous consequences for its future interests and the security of its citizens.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf States and Jordan, traditionally close to the United States, have been angered by a war which has gravely embarrassed them in the eyes of their public opinion and forced them to rethink their dependence on the United States. What is American friendship worth, they ask, if the protection of Israel overrides all other considerations?
In view of these colossal costs, what then drives the war?
The explanation, I believe, lies in the severe shocks which both the United States and Israel have suffered in the past five or six years -- shocks which undermine their strategy supremacy, and which confront them with the painful possibility of having to revise their cherished strategic doctrines.
The Israeli-U.S. war in Lebanon may perhaps be best understood as a desperate attempt to reverse this most unwelcome trend.
For the United States, the shocks include al-Qaida’s mass-casualty attacks of 9/11 on the American mainland and the failure to master the insurgency in Iraq, which looks more and more each day like an American strategic defeat.
For Israel, the shocks include being forced out of southern Lebanon by Hizballah in 2000, after a 22-year occupation, and Hamas’ suicide bombings during the second intifada which killed nearly 1,000 Israelis (against Palestinian casualties of more than 4,000.)
To these shocks must now be added Israel’s evident difficulty in crushing Hizballah, in spite of its overwhelming military strength.
All these developments point to a single conclusion: Asymmetric warfare by non-state actors has humiliated the United States and Israel and eroded their deterrent capability. Their strategic supremacy has been shown to be a myth.
As well as the devastating inroads made by non-state actors, Iran is now defiantly pursuing a nuclear programme which, if diverted to military use, could break Israel’s regional monopoly of atomic weapons. Iran has also pledged its military support for Syria if the latter is attacked by Israel or the United States, ostensibly for backing Hizballah and Hamas, but in reality because it, too, refuses to bend to U.S.-Israeli dictation.
Ze’ev Schiff, Israel’s well-known defence analyst, has succinctly described Israel’s security dilemma, as it wrestles with the new environment. This is what he wrote last week:
"Hizballah, and what this terrorist organization symbolises, must be destroyed at any price. This is the only option Israel has. We cannot afford a situation of strategic parity between Israel and Hizballah. If Hizballah does not experience defeat in this war, this will spell the end of Israel’s deterrence against its enemies."
This is a perfect expression of Israel’s mindset, shared unfortunately by many in the United States. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, well-known for its pro-Israeli views, wrote in The Financial Times of 26 July: "A ceasefire under any circumstances other than Hizballah’s complete disarmament would be construed as another victory for the terrorist agenda."
There we have it again. For both Schiff and Pletka, and many like them, Israel’s opponents are all terrorists. Israel’s deterrent power must reign supreme. Israel must be free to hit its neighbours but never to be hit back. The United States must be free to smash a major Arab state but never suffer the consequences.
Is it not time for Israel and its superpower ally to think again? What, after all, is wrong with strategic parity? Why do they insist on the unattainable goal of strategic supremacy? Why not a balance of power between Israel and its neighbours, and indeed between the United States and emerging powers like China, Russia, Brazil and India, not to mention the European Union? Can Israel’s security only be achieved at the cost of the insecurity -- and the periodic destruction -- of its neighbours? Do not the Palestinians and the Lebanese need protection against Israel at least as much, if not rather more, than it needs protection against Hamas and Hizballah?
Does not history prove that a balance of power keeps the peace while an imbalance causes war, because the stronger party will always seek to impose its will by force?
Will Israel and the United States never learn this lesson or must the rest of the world simply accept to be bombed into submission?
Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.
Copyright © 2006 Patrick Seale
================================
Condoleezza’s Doomed Diplomacy by Patrick Seale
Nothing better illustrates the fundamental contradictions of U.S. policy than that it is rushing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bombs and aviation fuel to Israel, while sending the stricken Lebanese $30m of humanitarian aid.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=991
Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire
http://www.agenceglobal.com/author.asp?type=2&id=129
DAY 19: AUDIO: "Crisis in the Middle East"
UPDATED AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001I060729-mideast-crisis-7-29-06.MP3
by Patrick Seale Released: 29 Jul 2006
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=997
America’s total support for Israel’s war in Lebanon is both alarming and mystifying. How can it be explained? Ties of sentiment undoubtedly play a part, as does the work of the hydra-headed Jewish Lobby in convincing Washington opinion that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical and that they face the same enemy in the shape of ‘Islamic terrorism.’
Mention must also be made of the important role of the ubiquitous neocons, both inside and outside the Bush administration, in shaping American foreign policy in a pro-Israeli direction.
But this does not seem enough to account for the unconditional alignment of the United States on Israel, for its refusal to demand an immediate ceasefire, for the hurried despatch to Israel of still more American weapons, and for the whole thrust of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy which is directed at ensuring Israel’s victory and the defeat and disarmament of its enemies, notably Hizballah.
The cost of this policy has already been enormous: Lebanon’s entire civilian infrastructure has been shattered, more than 600 of its citizens killed, nearly a million displaced, the whole amounting to a massive national and humanitarian catastrophe. On the other side, some 40 Israelis have been killed, many more wounded by Hizballah rocket attacks, and very considerable damage and disruption inflicted on the economy and on people’s lives, especially in northern Israel.
The indirect costs are also very great. Hate for Israel is now so widespread and deep-seated as to put in doubt its long-term acceptance in the region. America’s reputation in the Arab and Muslim world has been tremendously degraded, with dangerous consequences for its future interests and the security of its citizens.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf States and Jordan, traditionally close to the United States, have been angered by a war which has gravely embarrassed them in the eyes of their public opinion and forced them to rethink their dependence on the United States. What is American friendship worth, they ask, if the protection of Israel overrides all other considerations?
In view of these colossal costs, what then drives the war?
The explanation, I believe, lies in the severe shocks which both the United States and Israel have suffered in the past five or six years -- shocks which undermine their strategy supremacy, and which confront them with the painful possibility of having to revise their cherished strategic doctrines.
The Israeli-U.S. war in Lebanon may perhaps be best understood as a desperate attempt to reverse this most unwelcome trend.
For the United States, the shocks include al-Qaida’s mass-casualty attacks of 9/11 on the American mainland and the failure to master the insurgency in Iraq, which looks more and more each day like an American strategic defeat.
For Israel, the shocks include being forced out of southern Lebanon by Hizballah in 2000, after a 22-year occupation, and Hamas’ suicide bombings during the second intifada which killed nearly 1,000 Israelis (against Palestinian casualties of more than 4,000.)
To these shocks must now be added Israel’s evident difficulty in crushing Hizballah, in spite of its overwhelming military strength.
All these developments point to a single conclusion: Asymmetric warfare by non-state actors has humiliated the United States and Israel and eroded their deterrent capability. Their strategic supremacy has been shown to be a myth.
As well as the devastating inroads made by non-state actors, Iran is now defiantly pursuing a nuclear programme which, if diverted to military use, could break Israel’s regional monopoly of atomic weapons. Iran has also pledged its military support for Syria if the latter is attacked by Israel or the United States, ostensibly for backing Hizballah and Hamas, but in reality because it, too, refuses to bend to U.S.-Israeli dictation.
Ze’ev Schiff, Israel’s well-known defence analyst, has succinctly described Israel’s security dilemma, as it wrestles with the new environment. This is what he wrote last week:
"Hizballah, and what this terrorist organization symbolises, must be destroyed at any price. This is the only option Israel has. We cannot afford a situation of strategic parity between Israel and Hizballah. If Hizballah does not experience defeat in this war, this will spell the end of Israel’s deterrence against its enemies."
This is a perfect expression of Israel’s mindset, shared unfortunately by many in the United States. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, well-known for its pro-Israeli views, wrote in The Financial Times of 26 July: "A ceasefire under any circumstances other than Hizballah’s complete disarmament would be construed as another victory for the terrorist agenda."
There we have it again. For both Schiff and Pletka, and many like them, Israel’s opponents are all terrorists. Israel’s deterrent power must reign supreme. Israel must be free to hit its neighbours but never to be hit back. The United States must be free to smash a major Arab state but never suffer the consequences.
Is it not time for Israel and its superpower ally to think again? What, after all, is wrong with strategic parity? Why do they insist on the unattainable goal of strategic supremacy? Why not a balance of power between Israel and its neighbours, and indeed between the United States and emerging powers like China, Russia, Brazil and India, not to mention the European Union? Can Israel’s security only be achieved at the cost of the insecurity -- and the periodic destruction -- of its neighbours? Do not the Palestinians and the Lebanese need protection against Israel at least as much, if not rather more, than it needs protection against Hamas and Hizballah?
Does not history prove that a balance of power keeps the peace while an imbalance causes war, because the stronger party will always seek to impose its will by force?
Will Israel and the United States never learn this lesson or must the rest of the world simply accept to be bombed into submission?
Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.
Copyright © 2006 Patrick Seale
================================
Condoleezza’s Doomed Diplomacy by Patrick Seale
Nothing better illustrates the fundamental contradictions of U.S. policy than that it is rushing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bombs and aviation fuel to Israel, while sending the stricken Lebanese $30m of humanitarian aid.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=991
Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire
http://www.agenceglobal.com/author.asp?type=2&id=129
DAY 19: AUDIO: "Crisis in the Middle East"
UPDATED AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001I060729-mideast-crisis-7-29-06.MP3
