So what happened and where are we in the Middle East? While I posted a few things early on in the fighting, I have been silent ever since. Frankly, I have held back because my views were far enough out of the mainstream interpretation, that I was a bit hesitant about posting them. In particular, I thought the “Hezbollah Won” line of thinking was so off base that I was concerned there was something here I was missing. Ultimately time will tell, but here are several thoughts, mostly not in the mainstream.
Now, the “Hezbollah Won!” theme has yielded to the “Hezbollah Lost” theme, I am more comfortable that the state of things is the same: no one has a clue. I am now willing to throw my two cents in.
Hezbollah neither won nor lost. As the coverage implies, Hezbollah certainly won the immediate PR war – an important, but superficial battle. This is because a) Hezbollah is unconstrained by the truth and b) the Western media east it up in its quest to damage the US and President Bush. But fake photos; staged photos ops; and the like have created a backlash. Ultimately, reality wins.
I do not agree with Steven den Beste that “it's not even clear that Hezbollah is trying to win against Israel; their primary goal at this time may be to try to dominate Lebanon.” Dominate Lebanon by fighting Israel? He makes a case, but it’s not a good one. I am not sure I would classify the battles as "guerilla"; rather they started out as a terrorist action that turned into a defensive battle. What was the outcome Hezbollah wanted? It is not clear enough to justify den Beste's case.
The IDF was not beaten, but did not distinguish itself either. Like Marines in Iraq, there is no way they could “win” against the insurgency. A victory is redefined as a “war crime” and a defeat is, well, a defeat. That said, the IDF learns. And it certainly did here. The next time, things will go differently. The IDF dealt with the symptom not the cause. It has to plan, at the very least, to decapitate Syria next time around. And there will be a next time.
Prime Minister Ohmert was the big loser; setting expectations that were unrealistic and inexpertly managing the campaign. There will be leadership changes in Israel and for the better. More then anything, this was a political failure by Israel. Made even more acute by the tacit “support” Israel received from the Arab League – how many time can Israel count on that!
Iran put the world on notice that it is a force to be reckoned with…and I do not think that was smart. In a world where the US has plenty to focus on, Iran continues to try and draw our attention. Iran became Job 1. Nor did they win any allies in the Arab world. Iran as a non-Arab, Shiite state, stands in sharp contrast to the other Arab, Sunni nations of the Mideast. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the liberal Gulf Coast emirates will not accept Iran as the “lead” Middle Eastern nation. Even within Shiite Islam, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq is the generally recognized leader of Shiite Muslims., not the Iranian ayatollahs. And all indications are that al Sistani is conscience of the need for Muslims (Shiite and Sunni) to get along. (Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting since the death of Mohammed in 632.)
The US has been tarred with the media defeatist brush. While this is untrue, what the US does regarding Iran in the next few years will determine a significant part of the future of the Middle East. But the table has been set nicely. There is no doubt of the ambitions of Iran, so the US can count on more cooperation from the Arab states.
Then there is France. Chirac needs to go for the good of the Republic. Promising to lead the UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon, France offers only 200 troops out of 15,000 needed. Finally, when the Italians stepped up, Gallic pride prompted them to increase the force to 2,000 troops. I would emphasize that the lack of backbone of the politicians should not be extended to the French soldiers, who have served very well in world hot spots in the past few decades. But I just wish France would stop being so damn French.
The big unknown to me is how the Arab Mideast reacts to all this. Spewing anti-Western slogans and embracing victimhood have served the likes of Hosni Mubarak and the House of Saud well over the years. Do they recognize that this is a different beast? They do not need to make speedy progress toward tolerance, but steady tolerance.
And finally, Iraq. We must get it right in Iraq. A large, educated middle class, relatively moderate clerics, and, so far, a fervent desire for liberty makes this the best opportunity for the emergence of an Arab democracy.
All, of course, is not lost. The post-Camp David payoffs of Egypt showed that over time, nations can respond incentives. (Egypt is NOT a liberal democracy, but they are slowly moving in the right direction.) "Tactical restraint" is a meme being touted by Robert Wright on Bloggingheads.tv and the NYTimes and he uses Zidane as a metaphor. I think that approach needs to be used in most instances; saving pre-emption and the Bush Doctrine for the "hard" cases. (Is Iran a "hard case"? No, but they are getting there.) The trade-off is time: do we have enough time to be patient?
That no one knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment