That there is a conflict existing between the Jewish state of Israel and its neighbors is a known fact throughout the world. From there, however, explaining the conflict further and exploring its roots requires a certain amount of nuance. Most casual observers may equate the conflict over religious differences between two monotheistic faiths or even a dispute over real estate. In large part they would be right. However, there is something more profound just under the surface. What fuels this incredible conflict is something far more tangible than religious disputes and closed borders. What gives the region the awesome force of power to take up arms for their cause generation after generation comes from the concept of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism, or ethnic nationalism, may sound like the latest academic buzzword; but, in fact, ethnonationalism is hardly a new concept. It has been around since humans first developed the sense of kinship, language, tribalism, tradition, religion, cosmopolitans, nation states and so forth. It produces the sources for human spirit and enmity. Ethnonatioalism brought forth Manifest Destiny, the U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII (which was fueled by extreme ethnonationalism in National Socialism ideology) and centuries long continental and world dominance by the nation states of Europe. The list could literally go on and on. It’s based off a narrow list of identities that fuels the societal belief behind a particular cause. It’s often strong, unwilling to compromise, and lasting. Those in the modern era that may find such an archaic premise troubling, intellectually and morally, haven’t paid attention to how the world has been shaped by ethnonationalism. Take America, our modern thinking polity often times belittles the ideas of ethnic nationalism or a particular national identity. We often pride ourselves as an “open” society where numerous ethnicities live in relative peace.

Social scientist go to great lengths to explain the enduring qualities of a culture, usually described as Western, that is inviting making it easier for different nationalities regardless of racial or religious origins to assimilate. They label this as liberal or civic nationalism. However, the fact that ethnonationalism already won out in North America over a century ago and continues to shape the identity of this country is rarely considered. Jerry Z. Muller (2008) says in his Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them, “The liberal view has competed with and often lost out to a different view, that of ethnonationalism. The core of ethnonatioinalist idea is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.” (p. 20) Over the course of a couple of centuries, migration by a disproportionate amount of white Protestants from Northern-Europe and England brought with them a culture, traditions, laws and language. They, and their subsequent ancestors (that even include us), tamed, created and shaped the U.S. and as a result, the competition between civilizations in North America has been over for nearly 200 years.

Through conquest and industry, ethnonationalism in America reigned supreme and it has been by those standards that others have assimilated and adopted. If the societal equilibrium were to shift away from this because of mass migration or, a separate demographic explosion, it’s not all that unlikely that competing cultures here in the U.S. could rekindle the flames of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism is a strong force in Arab nations. Mainly because of their history, good and bad, and their religion. The modern Arab nationalist/extremist suffers from insecurities, and an inferiority complex. Added to that is a long laundry list of grievances and jealousies suffered by the West. While their history involves Defensive Developmentalism, government incompetence and loose and feuding confederations of tribes, all in which brought on a steady decline of social, military and political capital. Their nemesis in the West represents the antithesis to their situation. Europe’s high sense of identity and righteousness led to a global pursuit of riches, conquest, glory and dominance at the expense of the Middle East. When that episode in their history ran its course, American dominance picked up where Europe left off.

But to get to the point that allowed Western-European dominance and manipulation in the Middle East something binding and energetic was needed in the region. It came in the form of strong nation-states that were emerging in Western Europe. The competition between the competing powers in Europe during the 1500s – 1800s laid the way for increased economic and military expansion. Economic prosperity and ethnic nationalism requires literacy and education to promote communication and common beliefs. What developed from this was set of competing nation states that were very defined, educated and ethically charged, and the results were explosive. Consequently, the Middle East endured centuries of economic and political incursion through colonization by a Western civilization that far outpaced them in almost all aspects of life, and continues even today. Nothing in the daily lives of Arabs pass without a Western imprint on it. From music, to movies, commercial goods and technologies, all are a product of Western civilization. For many Arabs that even means the very country they live in was created or influenced by Western powers.

These are all things that most Arabs are aware of and resent. This, of course, plays heavily on their physic. And herein lies the reason for conflicts, ethnonationalism and the clash between West and Middle-east vs. Israel.If ethnonationalism gives reason to fight along borders or within a region, then hatred, distrust, jealousy and indifference with the Christian West give Arab-Muslims an overarching global cause.Samuel P. Huntington (1996) refers to this movement in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (p. 255). It is the overriding force in today’s global politics and particularly in the Middle East. All observable differences have to be considered and accepted as major contributors to the conflict such as different language, religion, culture, etc. However, Western dominance and Diktat runs an equally strong course through the life of the Arab world. In the view of most Arab-Muslim nationalist, Israel’s existence in former Palestine offers a daily reminder of Western dominance and the inadequacies of the Arab world. Jewish Israel is a spur literally in the side of Islam.

Considering Israel’s size and population great wealth, technology, and medical advances provide a standard of living that far exceeds most Arab countries.What’s more, it is the region’s premier military power and has been tested numerous times, in which resulted in embarrassing and disastrous defeats for Arab-Muslim nations. It’s no wonder that the creation and existence of Israel is first on the list of grievances.

Balfour Agreement, Zionism and Hezbollah

The ending of WWI brought the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and with it a great vacuum to fill. The British Empire still had important interest in the region. Palestine stood out strategically because it served as a land bridge from Egypt to India and offered security to the Suez Canal protecting the sea road to India and elsewhere throughout the Empire. Britain, under Lloyd George devised away to bring Palestine under its sphere and serve as an ally in the Mid East. He distrusted the Arabs in Palestine and possible German interference in the region; therefore, pushed the idea of mass Jewish resettlement in the ancient land. David Fromkin (1989) in his book A Peace to End All Peace supports the idea. “There were also those who were worried about allowing the Germans and Turks to retain control of an area whose vital importance had been underscored by the Prime Minister. The assistant secretaries of the War Cabinet , Leo Amery and Mark Sykes, worried that in the postwar world the Ottoman Empire might fall completely in the clutches of Germany. Were that to happen, the road to India would be in enemy hands – a threat the British Empire could avert only by ejecting the Turks and Germans, and taking into British hands the southern perimeter of the Ottoman domains.” (p. 276)

These factors plus Biblical romanticism, Woodrow Wilson’s high-minded and heavy-handed international views, and a growing surge of Zionism led to the Balfour agreement the prelude to the British mandate that created modern day Israel.Zionism was growing in importance in Europe as well as in America. It was fueled from Jewish suffering and centuries of persecution in just about whatever land they settled. Before the end of WWI, they began to be gripped by the idea returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine as the “Land of Israel”. The idea that they could set up a Jewish government based on self-determination and structured on Western democracy, led to a nostalgic frenzy. Backed by the British government, fear of anti-Semitism and, later the holocaust, migration was encouraged to create a modern Jewish state.

With them they brought valuable trades in medicine, law, education, commerce and a Western sense of culture that previously was absent from the area. All of this was promptly greeted with a revolt from the indigenous Arabs of the region. The areas under control by Arabs were cleansed of Jews and the areas controlled by Jews forced Arabs out to the surrounding Arab countries. During the ensuing years, violence against Jews in Arab countries forced another round of migration to Israel. Jerry Muller (2008) writes about the impact in the region upon the establishment of the Jewish state and Jewish migration. “Some 750,000 Arabs left, primarily for the surrounding Arab countries, andthe remaining 150,000 constituted only about a sixth of the population of thenew Jewish State. In the years afterward, nationalist-inspired violence against Jews in Arab countries propelled almost all of the more than 500,000 Jews there to leave their lands of origin and immigrate to Israel.” (p. 29)

The seeds for ethnonationlsim and true clash between West and Islam were being planted.Hezbollah is a byproduct from the creation of the Jewish sate and Zionism. Though founded only in 1982 out of reaction from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the group itself is hardly a new concept. Its history goes back as far as Arab-Muslim nationalism/Islamism does and can be seen as a microcosm of Arab/Islamic sentiment towards Israel and Western backing. The force itself acts as troops in the trench on the front line fighting against Western incursion and Zionism. Also, it gives an outlet for uneducated and unemployed young men to serve a cause greater than their lowly existence can muster. Furthermore, Hezbollah gives the Muslim world a chance to cheer and feel a source of pride as it repeatedly thumbs its nose at Israel and, by extension, engages in a proxy war with the West. Naturally, they receive high popularity in Southern Lebanon and support from regional powers like Syria and Iran.

Ethnonationalism, and all the defining and clashing identities that come with it contributed to the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006. However, something much greater and far reaching was at play.What actually is taking place is the Islamic world’s attempt to do away with the status-quo of Western interference in the region. Israel represents Western dominance and arrogance; therefore, the conflict is one entirely between the West and Islam, with Israel as the battlefront. The West, and America being its standard bearer, represents an image of unimaginable power and wealth — with God like powers that is able to topple governments as well as prop them up. With that comes an arrogance and a global swagger coupled with high minded policies of inclusion, tolerance and the persuasion of Western universal values and systems. While promoting these ideals, the West (mainly the U.S.) sometimes bomb and invade Muslim countries while at the same time preaching restraint, praising human rights, and acting as a global hawk for weapons proliferation. This creates resentment and assertiveness from the Muslim world and sets the path for extremism. The populace adopts an antagonistic attitude and governments begin to cooperate to undermine American-Western aims, as was the case with the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

History is always present and the events of the past leaves the residual necessary to fuel the ongoing pattern of conflict between the West and Islam. There is a source of pride and romanticism that exist in the Muslim world. Muslim dominance was absolute in the Middle East and North Africa by the 8th century. The Arabic armies fought off Christian advances into the Holy Land and by the 13th century the Ottomans were a “world” power that caused Europe to quake. This era was the high-water mark of Muslim dominance and exertion in worldly affairs. From the 16th century on the West, powered by organized nation-states, gained every conceivable advantage over the Ottomans and other Empires in the Middle East.

By the 20th century almost the entire Middle East was under the sphere of Western control. Huntington (1996) writes, “By 1920 only four Muslim countries – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan – remained independent of some form of non-Muslim rule.”(p. 210). Considering all of this, that groups like Hezbollah draws support is hardly amazing. These Islamic groups play up Islamic romanticism and fuel the imagination of a time when Islam and its principles ran supreme. It glorifies an explosive culture, a growing population and draws out on the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and Islam especially in a time when the American-Western way of life is so heavily promoted and seductive to Middle Eastern culture. It gives a growing population of youth a chance to be a part of a grand cause and an opportunity to advance socially.

More importantly, Islam has showed a propensity for violence and absolutism and with the Western creation of Jewish Israel sitting squarely and defiantly on their land only brings the volatile culture to a boil. Samuel Huntington (1996) states, “Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples.” And again he states supported by a list of evidence. “In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of intercivilazational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims” (pp. 256, 257, 258).

Conclusion

The ideological, cultural, religious and deeply historical differences between the Islamic/fundamentalist Middle East and the Christian/secular West are likely to continue. A growing younger Muslim population who tend to be more conservative and are likely to be more fundamental will only add to an assertive culture with an absolutist faith. Larger numbers of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and America will further create antagonisms between the cultures as tensions and conflicts take place elsewhere. Islamic states like Iran who is showing the willingness to assert their power regionally may also prove to be a destabilizing influence.

Israel was created during an age of ethnonationalism and many of its citizens and leaders are still influenced by it. The country and its government was born from 20th century style of European nationalism and still carries with it the policies and sentiment that helped to shape it. Therefore, it is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that Israeli will make any substantial concessions to Muslim demands. As the regional military power, backed by the U.S., Israel will continue to defend itself from threats and protect its interest in the region.

If the Middle East can become stabilized economically during this century, many of the disenchanted youth can find opportunity socially and through education, and not through radical Islamic groups. As opportunities increase and standard of living goes up so will the fortunes of the region. However, radicalism and resentment seems to be the only social/political outlet and current source for Arab-Muslim thinking.

References and Bibliography

Ferguson, N. (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Books.

Fromkin, D. (1989).A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & amp; and; Schuster.

Muller, J. (2008). The Clash of Peoples: Us and Them. Foreign Affairs, 87 (2) , 18-35.

Robin Williams and Robert De Niro in the 1990 film, Awakenings.

In the 1990 film, Awakenings, neurologist Dr. Malcolm Sayer (played by Robin Williams) discovers what at first appears to be a miracle cure in the drug L-DOPA. L-DOPA “awakens” patients of a sleeping sickness rendered comatose for decades. Suddenly, these men and women who were thought to be little more than vegetables were thrust into life once more.

There is a moment, a brief glimpse of hope in this film, as the patients experience life once again. It is as though all is well. The drug works miraculously. And then it starts to slip. Leanord Lowe, played by Robert De Niro, is the focus of the story. He transforms slowly from fully “awakened” into an increasingly disfunctional state. This physical withdrawal is accompanied by a descent into rage, hopelessness, and in the end, resignation. One by one the patients are taken off the drug, and slip once again into a perpetual sleep.

The Awakening Councils

Sheik Abdul al-Rishawi, the founder of the Awakening Councils, was assassinated in September 2007.

In 2005 the sheiks of al Anbar Province in Iraq began what has since been termed the Anbar Awakening. Sheik Abdul al-Rishawi formed the Anbar Awakening Council, the first and most prominent in a series of Sunni tribal coalitions whose aim was to ally themselves to the United States forces in an attempt to kill or force al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq out of that country. This alliance was born from the ashes of both a failed US strategy and the overly aggressive tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq. Essentially, the sheiks had become fed up with their guests, who ended up killing far fewer Americans than Iraqis.

Indeed, Abdul al-Rishawi was assassinated two years later, though his cause and the cause of all the Awakening movements continued beyond his death.

These Awakenings were largely funded by the US Government, and coincided to some extent with three important events in Iraq. The first was the promotion of General David Petraeus to the top job in Iraq, and the Army’s subsequent adoption of a modern counter-insurgency strategy there. The second was the surge in troops authorized by Washington.

The third event is less measurable, and coincided directly with the rise of both Sunni and Shiite militias. What has happened over the past few years has been the voluntary ethnic relocation of Iraqis into their own ethno-religious regions. Sunnis have migrated into Sunni areas, Shiites into their own neighborhoods. Tension remains, but the visceral, daily contact between subgroups has diminished. It is reminiscent of Jerusalem before and after the 1948 war, as Jews and Arabs began to sequester themselves off from one another. Peacefulness ensued, if not peace.

It is likely that the Awakenings along with the continous ethnic relocation during that period warrant greater credit for rising security in Iraq than American efforts such as the Surge, though it could also be argued that they never have worked so well had the US not adopted the Petraeus counter-insurgency approach. Essentially there was a great meeting of minds and will that led to what can now be described as a delicate stability in Iraq, a tenous calm. Indeed, US forces can safely say that they are at least on the road to victory (in some sense) in the country that only a year ago seemed a doomed quagmire, expensive and futile and foolhardy.

Now we have a glimpse of what stability may look like in Iraq. The government there has flexed its muscle at least a little, clamping down on Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army with US assistance, and asserting itself as more than just a US puppet. Iraqi Security forces are better trained and equipped, and more importantly, more confident than at any point during the US occupation.

Perpetual Sleep

They are so confident, in fact, that the predominantly Shiite Iraqi Government has proposed disbanding the Sunni Awakening councils altogether, and though they promise to incorporate up to a quarter of the members into regular Iraqi Security forces, that leaves a potential 75,000 armed, trained militia fighters out of a job. When Dr. Sayer’s patients found themselves suddenly losing their newfound power they experienced hopelessness and rage. If this Awakening should falter, or be actively suppressed, I wonder what sort of rage might be felt on the streets of Baghdad, and through al Anbar and beyond?

Already the Iraqi Government has begun to crack down on the Awakening councils, arresting some members, and attempting to disarm or disenfranchise others. One might see this as a natural progression from militia-rule to centralized Government. Another might see this as sectarian politics, with the Shiite majority doing its best to hold on to as much power as possible.

The US is now planning a drawdown of troops. This is a good thing. While there is no possibility of withdrawing completely from Iraq in the near or even distant future, it has become apparent that the Iraqi Government can do more on its own behalf. Whether the choices it makes will be wise is another question, but it is without a doubt beyond American control. We wisely paid the salaries of thousands of Sunni fighters, and thy drove out al Qaeda. If the Iraqi Government will not do the same, what can the United States do to stop them?

The Surge made the counter-insurgency possible. The vision of General Petraeus coincided perfectly with the brave and sensible actions of the Sunni tribes. Security is possible. We can see it on the horizon, and behind it somewhere well out of sight is that elusive peace we once believed unattainable.

But is it all an illusion? Has this all been little more than the effects of a miracle drug soon to wear off, leaving the country in the same sad state it was in two or three years ago? The threat of civil war still looms like a black cloud above everything, far more visible, more tangible than that will o’ the wisp, peace.

~cross-posted at Newsvine.  Join the Discussion!

Super fly smart guy Michael Oren (O yeah! He got game!) shares that talk isn’t always cheap (not to be confused with talking trash).

“The issue of American dialogue with Iran featured prominently in Friday’s presidential debate. Barack Obama pledged “to engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran.” John McCain denounced that notion as “naive” and “dangerous.”

This exchange capped a week in which five former secretaries of state, including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, called for talks between the United States and Iran, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured the United Nations General Assembly that “the American empire is reaching the end of the road.”

Amid all of these declarations, though, few questions were raised about the possible benefits of U.S.-Iranian talks as well as the potential pitfalls. What, for example, would be the talks’ objectives — to moderate Iranian behavior and renew Iranian-American relations or, more broadly, to recognize a new strategic order in the Middle East?

(more…)

~by Christopher Hitchens

An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London’s Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it:

At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to “the Afghan-Pakistan war.” The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital’s green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.

“Don’t mention the war,” as Basil insists with mounting hysteria in Fawlty Towers. And, when discussing the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, most people seem deliberately to avoid such telling phrases as “Pakistani aggression” or—more accurate still—”Pakistani colonialism.” The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

~read the rest at Slate

Before I was a hawk, I was a liberal.  Part of my transformation to “neocon” was due to the fact that the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the MoveOn.org crowd.  Liberals, in their intense dislike of Bush, gave in to a faith in illogical hatred–motivated by an any-means-necessary hatred of Bush, which Charles Krauthammer termed Bush Derangement Syndrome–so much so, even, that they have all but written off the very real threat of Islamo-fascism and terrorism.

But it goes deeper than that.  During the Clinton era, Democrats and Liberals were not so quick to decry war in whatever form it took.  The Balkans did not raise such an intense fuss that the entire Party was usurped by peace-nicks.  The first Gulf War went off without much protest, and certainly without the virulence and vitriol we see today.

The funny thing to me is that I was against this second invasion of Iraq, along with many other liberals, but once we had invaded, once we had invested ourselves in this fight–and the Iraqi people–my dissent ended–not my criticism of tactics or the rushed invasion, but my dissent over the war itself.  I recalled the preemptive move out of Iraq in the early 90’s.  The Iraqi people that had risen up to help us were then beaten back down by Saddam Hussein, utterly abandoned by America.

(more…)

Or, You Reap What You Sow

I am an American and I love America. I was born here, I live here, and I really cannot imagine living anywhere else. Sure, I would not mind living abroad for a few years, but I would definitely want to return to America eventually.

That being said, I definitely do not agree with everything our country has done. Specifically, what America has done in the Balkans is absolutely disgraceful and terrible. To give but a few specific examples, the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the recognising of Kosovo’s independence. Both of these events, along with many others, are a stain on our great country’s history and reputation.

That is why I cannot help but feel a bit of amusement at the anger of the countries (America, EU countries, and more) who condemn Vladimir Putin’s Dmitry Medvedev’s decision to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. Is this not exactly what America and loads of other countries did with Kosovo? What right did Kosovo have to secede from Serbia? Kosovo is Serbian. They had a Serbian majority until the Serbs were driven out. Now Kosovo is a predominantly Muslim nation recognised by many countries around the world. Oh yes, is that not exactly what we need: another Muslim nation in Europe, in addition to the lovely Albania (that was sarcasm).

Since Russia’s war with Georgia, relations with Russia are at an all-time low. Yes, I do think Russia responded with rather disproportionate force in Georgia. Still, I do not think we can blame this entirely on them. America ought to bear some share of the responsibility: it is like a Kosovo for a Kosovo, so to speak. We have been antagonising Russia at the cost of appeasing Islam. We have supported Muslims in the Balkans, even when they have committed unspeakable atrocities (which are then attributed wrongly to the Serbs). Look at the future we face, especially in light of what happened on September 11: is it truly a smart thing to alienate a potential powerful ally? Russia may not be perfect, but they are much less unsavoury than the Islamic countries we have supported, both in the Balkans and not in the Balkans. Both America and Russia’s dalliances with Islamic countries are shortsighted. America and Russia ought to be allies, not enemies.

Map credit.

Originally posted at birdbrain.

(more…)

The Arab Press and pro-Arab and Islamic bloggers and members of sites such as Newsvine are constantly up in arms over the supposed war crimes the Israeli government is perpetrating against the Palestinian people. Prior to Israel conquering the territories of the West Bank, which was annexed initially by Jordan, and Gaza, which was Palestinian only insomuch as it was a part of Egypt, the conflict in the Middle-East was referred to as the Arab/Israeli conflict.

It has now become the Palestinian/Israeli conflict–a convenient change of term for Arab propaganda, as it is much easier to define the Palestinians as the victim or minority than it was previously to define the Arabs in that fashion. The irony is that the conflict is still an Arab/Israeli conflict, and by no means a Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Palestinians, much to their misfortune, are little more than puppets in this sad game, used by the hostile Arab states in their proxy war against Israel.

(more…)

(more…)

By Ryan P. Christiano

In an address before The House of Commons, on the 1^st of March 1848, Lord Palmerston declared: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. Which theory or theories of International Relations motivated the Iraq War, and more narrowly, inspired President Bush? The President’s State of The Union Address; four short months after the attacks of September 11^th, declared that a new ‘Axis of Evil’ exists in the world after 9/11. In the 2003 State of The Union Address, the President declared that America and her allies were the only things that stand between a world of peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm; and that Iraq now threatened the world with chaos and constant alarm.

(more…)

Obama is the consumate flip-flopper–not due, I suspect, to dishonesty, but rather to naivete regarding foreign policy.  He’s just outspoken enough to say something foolish before his advisers can correct him.  Or rather, with his comment of full support for Israel’s claim to an undivided Jerusalem, just foolish enough to say something good and honest and true before his advisers have time to reel him in, like when he said

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided

(more…)

In the context of the 2006 stalemate, progress in Iraq post-surge has been a success beyond what even the most optimistic of supporters of the invasion could have expected. The indicators are all pointing in the right direction- violence incidents at a 4 year low, the Iraqi army taking control of Sadr City and Basra, oil production rising, an expansion in Iraqi army and munitions, the flow of refugees reversed and the operational abilities and manpower of al-Qaeda severely damaged.

(more…)

The latest dust up between eventual general election opponents Barack Obama and John McCain came today in which John McCain characterized remarks made by Obama. I will recount them here to set the stage for my analysis:

Obama said on Sunday in Pendleton, Oregon:

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’”

John McCain characterized what Obama said like this on Monday in Chicago:

“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,”

McCain further said of Iran regarding its threat to America vis-a-vis Obama’s comparison to the Soviet Union:

McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to Israel’s destruction.

John McCain’s attempt to show Barack Obama as a naife because Obama does not see Iran and the Soviet Union as equal threats falls on its face from the start. Iran is not a world superpower. Iran does not have a military that is within the same tier as the United States military. Iran does not have missile silos with nuclear ICBMs targeting American cities simply awaiting the word to level them. In short, Iran is not an opponent capable of making war with the United States symmetrically and this is the distinction that John McCain fails to make.

On balance, most of the conflicts of the 21st century will not resemble those of the 20th century. They will differ just as the set piece battles and Napoleonic tactics of the 19th century advanced into the apex of 20th century war theory: maneuver warfare as opposed to static battle lines. That apex is reflected by the United States military today in its armor that carries great firepower while being able to move fast enough to outflank an opponent and a paratrooper force that is the envy of all nations, able to deploy anywhere in the world in a few dozen hours. The great majority of conflicts in this century will be of the asymmetrical kind. Barack Obama understands this and John McCain, it seems, does not.

It is apropos that this message be delivered in a place like Newsvine because the Internet is the primary driving force behind the change in how wars are fought just as the internal combustion engine was the primary driving force in changing how wars were fought in the 20th century. Enemies like Iran learned late last century after observing the United States fight wars that decentralization was its best option when confronting America. It was not a large army that drove the American Marines out of Beirut, it was a single suicidal member of Hezbollah.

Iran is likely our most troublesome enemy in the short term, but it is not because they resemble the Soviet Union in the least. It is because they have cultivated amorphous armies and terrorist cells across the world that it can call on to act or that are preset to act if Iran is attacked. The Iraq War only extended Iran’s reach, putting a Shiite government into power in Iraq which has allowed several powerful Shiite militias to spring into existence, two of which are al-Sadr’s group and the Badr militia. Destroying Iran is not an exercise which would be difficult if America were so disposed, dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist minefield that Iran laid to protect itself would be. Therefore, more is to be gained through diplomacy than through a standoff because diplomacy is a much craftier answer to asymmetrical warfare than brute force and it appears that McCain favors brute force while Obama favors diplomacy and, failing that, brute force.

Also fundamentally misunderstood by McCain and better understood by Obama is the threat that China presents in the long term. I believe this is a result of the generational gap between the two candidates. China is, without a doubt, the greatest asymmetrical threat that the United States will face this century. It has proved this over and over again through its satellite destroyer test that demonstrated its capability to wipe out the system that the United States military relies on (the Global Positioning System) to guide its bombs, its soldiers and its warships.

It proved that it could jam a powerful commercial computer network when Chinese hackers attacked CNN’s network because it did not like the coverage CNN gave regarding the Free Tibet protesters and the Olympic flame. China has official (black hat) hackers and unofficial (gray hat) hackers that both take direction from the Chinese government that could mobilize China’s computing power and sheer population volume to bombard and possibly take down essential defense networks that are used to relay orders to American military units. China is also the leader when it comes to espionage (corporate and military) against the United States government and American companies. This network was put on display recently when China chose to (unwisely in my opinion) use their embassies and registered college student organizations for Chinese students to organize pro-China rallies to counter the Free Tibet protesters in San Francisco.

These student organizations have been an engine for both corporate and military espionage as the students make contact with the Chinese government through the organizations and then, after graduation, go on to be employed by American defense contractors or other companies that have valuable technological developments that the Chinese government wants to obtain and disseminate to the People’s Liberation Army (which is then incorporated into Chinese arms manufacturing) or to one of China’s many industries who seek to compete on the global market with American companies in terms of quality. This is, admittedly, a cloud that is on the horizon but it is a cloud that is gathering and, in approximately 20 years, will settle over our country and will need to be weathered.

Whether it be on Iran’s asymmetrical terrorist warfare or China’s asymmetrical computer warfare and corporate & military espionage, I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s mindset and advisers far outclass John McCain’s mindset and advisers. To maintain our advantage over our direct enemies and current competitors that could turn into direct enemies in the future, we have to have a forward-looking view. McCain, to use a term from military history, wants to fight the last war. Obama’s newness is to our advantage because it gives him a view that is conducive to innovation and spurs him to envision the next war and be prepared to fight it.

Hamas has proposed a ten-year truce with Israel. Continued peace–peace that could extend beyond one decade–is apparently too much of a commitment for the Palestinian terrorist group. Ten years. I imagine Khaled Mashaal thought that this was a rather nice number. A rounded number. A short time for peace to sink in–certainly not long enough for a viable two-state solution to become solidified. Without a doubt, not long enough for any sort of reconciliation to occur between the Palestinians and the Israelis, or should I say between the Arabs and the Jews.

Ten years isn’t really long enough for any sort of real peace to manifest. It sounds rather like a very long cease-fire. As with all cease-fires, however, what lays in wait at the end of the line is a fire. When the cease ceases to exist, all that’s left is a conflagration. That seems to be the meat of this so-called truce offer, which is so obviously flawed that Mr. Jimmy Carter should be hanging his head in shame and embarrassment right now for ever lending credence to the Hamas movement. Carter seems completely oblivious to the outrageous demands of the militants, and suspiciously optimistic about chances to negotiate with these killers and kidnappers.

Nevertheless, Hamas has made an offer. This is something. Even if it is just a ploy to buy time and re-arm, at least it is something, right? Even if ten years would only serve to make Hamas stronger and more capable of attacking Israel with real force, at least there is some motion, some budging of the proverbial tectonic plates.

It is important to note, however, that nobody in their right mind would accept a peace agreement from a group who refuses their enemy’s very right to exist.

Ten years. Hamas, even though “at peace” with Israel would still refuse to acknowledge Israel’s very right to exist. More than likely, terrorism from other groups would continue, unchecked, the entire time.

Here is one scenario: Hamas and Israel make “peace” and Hamas promises not to attack Israel if Israel withdraws from the West Bank. Then another terrorist group emerges as the “new” Hamas. Perhaps Islamic Jihad will take the reigns. Perhaps some other fringe movement will rise up to replace the now “legitimate” Hamas–sort of a replay of what Hamas did when Fatah became a recognized political group, when Arafat was suddenly not a terrorist anymore but a statesman.

This group will blow themselves up in an Israeli cafe, or a Jerusalem bus, or will start hurling makeshift rockets into Israeli cities. They will complain of human rights violations, of Israeli occupation, regardless of the fact that Israel at this time will have withdrawn from all so-called “occupied” lands. They will do this and Hamas will not stop them. Likely, they will be funded by some outside government–probably the same government or governments that will fund the armament of Hamas who now will operate without Israeli supervision of any kind.

So Israel will retaliate, and has always been the case, the world will condemn them for it, casting their act of self defense as an atrocity. People from countries around the world who are not (and probably never have been) under constant attack will chastise and berate the Israeli actions. Hamas will have the high moral ground, since they didn’t carry out the attack–all the while rearming, not doing the dirty work, building up international support, and plotting what their charter has always said they would carry out: the utter destruction of Israel.

Is this the peace we want for the region? Is this even, in any sense, peace? It’s like one kid saying to another, if you look away, take your guard down, I won’t hit you for ten minutes. For ten minutes you’re good to go, no fist, no sucker-punch.

And then?

Dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Perhaps not coincidentally, most of the foreign oil we purchase is from States that are openly hostile to our interests, or who we probably should not be aligned with, such as the Saudis who have supplied many of the terrorists, extremists, and funding for terror against the United States and the West, not to mention their insistence on the spread of Wahabism through Suadi funded Islamic schools and mosques across the globe.

Other oil producers, like the UAE, are less radical in practice, but still represent a culture that America should hardly embrace or support–after all, we are supposed to represent freedom, personal security, and individual liberty. We are supposed to embody justice and economic prosperity for the masses, not just the elite oil cartels and dictators who populate the Middle-East leadership.

Then, too, there is Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, the Western Hemisphere’s answer to its relative lack of dictators and despots. Mr. Chavez is quite friendly with the rogue leadership of Iran, and further shows the fallacy behind so-called socialist States. Chavez should be decrying the inequity present in most Middle-Eastern States. After all, he is a populist and a champion of the little guy, right?

Nevertheless, as bad as Chavez may be, at least we aren’t supporting suicide bombers and the total repression of women when we buy his oil. We’re supporting his inflated ego, and we’re not really doing the world a service by inflating him further, but we’re not funding radical imams who incite violence against Western States and Israel….at least, I hope we’re not. Where Venezuelan oil profits go is a good question. Surely Chavez is aligned with some very unfriendly people. Should some of that money find its way into the hands of organizations whose intent is the destruction of Israel or the United States, no one would really be surprised.

The Price of Oil

Oil money is blood money, no doubt about it. I understand that right now, we have very little choice in the matter. Our economy depends on oil, sadly, and alternative energy sources are still in their infancy. This is one reason that I’m fully behind the reinstitution of Nuclear Power in the United States. New reactors should be built, and this should be done sooner than later. The more we can get away from oil and coal (which has its own long list of problems) the better.

The cost of oil is also paid by the people of the Middle-East, whose leaders maintain their tight grip in part due to their vast oil wealth. Using religion as their front, the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name a few, manage strict, brutal control over their populations. Islam has been radicalized over the past 100 years, in part due to the natural reaction to Colonialism, but largely due to the rapid increase in wealth in the region, and the imbalanced way that wealth has been distributed. Lack of freedom, the radicalization of Islam, and an inherent yet reasonable mistrust of the West, all contribute to what has become the Iron Veil.

Religious Violence

Most of the religions of the world have embraced violence at one time or another. And most adherents to their religion have remained blessedly peaceful even during the darkest of times. Nevertheless, in Medieval Europe Christians allowed other Christians to kill millions of women in so-called witch hunts. The Spanish Inquisition was one of the bloodiest campaigns the world has ever seen.

In Spain peaceful Muslims and Jews were driven from their homes and exiled–or were put to the sword. This in the name of Catholicism. Christians remained silent as their leaders shored up power in the name of religion, using extreme ideologies to pacify their people and tighten their control. Vast wealth discrepancies existed between the peasantry and the elite, and these increased as Empires grew–the Spanish, the Austrian, each torch-bearers of the Holy Roman Empire.

Vast wealth and religious extremism cast Europe under a familiar cloud, one that can be seen above the region once known as Mesopotamia today. Gone are the days of Islamic glory–the Ottoman Empire is fallen; the Caliphates of old are no more. The height of Islamic splendor evidenced in Cordoba is a thing of the far distant past.

Perhaps colonialism left the region vulnerable for what is happening today. Perhaps globalism has followed too close on the heels of its predecessor, and now it is too simple to equate the two, and spread an anti-Western ideology that festers into hate and extremism. Then, too, there is a yearning for days gone by–for a mythical Islamic State that once existed in the form of the Caliphates of old. Islamism today is attempting to spread this Caliphate and with it Sharia or Islamic Law to all the countries where Muslim immigrants and converts have spread. The simplicity and idealism of Islamic Law ignores all the terrifying realities inherent in its practice–but a secular world, a global world, is a frightening thing. Fear of meaninglessness and a distrust of capitalism lead to the adoption of religious extremism. Sometimes this manifests peacefully–Buddhist monks who detach from society; the Amish who abandon technology–and sometimes it is a violent manifestation.

I have no doubt that most people just want to live–most Muslims just want to work, eat, love and build a life for themselves like anyone else. Family, security, stability, and though they may not understand it in some parts of the world, freedom. Freedom to achieve these things without the intervening hand of theocracy or despotism or ancient, brutal legal systems.

The Way Forward: Addressing the Issues at Hand

So from all of this–oil, poverty, economic imbalance, historical distrust of Western society, the equating of Colonialism with Globalism, social despondency–the extremists are able to grow new extremists, suicide bombers, the faithful but impoverished, the martyrs.

So can we combat this rise of extremism? Surely it cannot benefit either the West or the Islamic world. As I stated previously, I believe most Muslims just want to live and let live. The extremists poison the well. Yet, if this extremism is an effect of so many different causes, how can we ever hope to contain it, to quash it, to drive it back into the pages of history?

I think we can fight the spread of Islamism and accept the religion of Islam all at the same time.

First, we must find ways to break our ties with despotic regimes whose only connection to us is through the oil pipelines. Undoubtedly, our support of Saudi Arabia is hypocritical when we are so blatantly against the State of Iran. Both governments should be on our list of antagonist entities. Leveling the economic discrepancies in the Middle-East is vital to creating stability in the region. Dictatorships gorged and fat on their oil riches will never voluntarily move toward economic freedom, as it will invariably cut into their pocket books in one form or another.

Second, we must wage a war of ideas. Somehow we must debunk the notion that colonialism and globalism are one and the same. For one thing, globalism is here to stay. It is the way the world has evolved, and no matter what the isolationists here and abroad wish, there is no way to turn back the clock. We are stuck with a global economy for all the growing pains it may create. Friction is inevitable, but there is no reason it should spark such vehement resistance in the middle-east. The use of Islam as a fomenter of radicalism is one tool the anti-globalists in the Arab world have in their arsenal against the West.

Thirdly, we must maintain a strong military and do whatever it takes to provide stability for us and our allies, especially Israel who endures the most constant battering of terrorism. Any success the terrorists have against the West will serve only to further their cause and popular acceptance. I am an advocate of practical neoconservatism. I believe in the spread of security first, and democracy later. Security is far more important to those nations rising out of the clutches of despotism, than democracy–as is evidenced by the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, neither of these wars, nor the larger war on terror can be won through military means alone, but that is no reason to abandon our military and intelligence efforts.

And lastly, we must champion womens’ rights across the globe. The lack of womens’ rights in many regions of the world has lead to the widespread poverty, increased childbirth rates, and yes, an expansion of radicalism. Promoting womens’ rights and education can combat these epidemics in a truly positive way.

The Muslim World

Democracy is important, but it is not the first priority in this war. Security, energy independence, and the continuation of the war of ideas and the war of truth against propaganda, the fight against inequality and social injustice, these are the most important factors in the war on terror.

Until these issues are addressed, the strife will continue. Islamists will continue to radicalize their religion, and dictators will continue to sap their populations and convince them at the same time that their woes are the effect of the West, of colonialism, of Israel.

The Islamic world has as much to gain in the defeat of their tyrants and extremists as the Western world, and the last step in fighting this long war must be taken by the Muslims themselves in decrying and ousting the radicalism from their own populations. It will be nigh impossible for the West to do this alone. A concerted effort by the Islamic world to end terror and accept modernity is necessary. I believe this can be done without sacrificing the culture or faith of Islamic society.

All these things must be accomplished, and we cannot give up on any front if peace is ever to be achieved.

 ~from Neo-Neocon

Allison Kaplan Summer translates an Obama interview with the Israeli news source Ynet that is due to appear on Friday. Asked how he would deal with the threat of Iran and whether he would support military action if diplomacy fails, this was Obama’s answer:

I don’t believe that diplomacy alone will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe that we will require our national strength in order to achieve this important goal. The biggest threat to Israel today comes from Iran, where there is a radical government that is continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and continues to support terror across the region. President Ahmedinejad continues to deny the Holocaust and call for Israel destruction, and it is impossible to relate to his threats to destroy Israel as mere rhetoric. My mission when I am president will be to eliminate that threat. The time has come to talk directly to the Iranians in order to arrive at an end to their support for terror and an end to the creation of nuclear weapons. I believe that we need to offer Iran improved relations with the international community. If they do not respond to that, we must continue to intensify the sanctions.

Granted, the topic of Iran is a conundrum for most politicians. No one has what I would consider a good solution—and that’s mainly because there is none. Here Obama tries to give a balanced answer, and allay fears that he is dangerously naive about Iran and far too reliant on “mere talk” in dealing with the country. His first sentence makes that clear.

But what does he actually say after that? I find it exceedingly nebulous. What is “our national strength?” (I hope it’s just a poor translation). Is that some sort of code word for military action, or at least military threat? And if he thinks that talking with the Iranians, and offering them improved relations with the international community, will bring “an end to their support for terror and an end to the creation of nuclear weapons,” I believe he has another think coming.

And sanctions? Iran is not a country especially likely to be affected by them, for a number of reasons delineated here. And here’s a more recent article describing the probable futility of such efforts. It’s unfortunately a matter of too little, too late, and with too little support from the world at large.

Sanctions are an effective tool only under certain very limited conditions. As even the left/liberal Israeli paper Haaretz points out, the sanctions on Iran presently being considered by the international community have a chance of being imposed only because they are so very weak. There are too many players who feel it is in their best interests to keep them that way.

Even under the limited conditions in which sanctions have been successful in the past (and that includes the strong support of the entire international community involved, and the provocation of an unequivocal offense committed by the country being punished—neither of which are present with Iran), they tend to take a long time to work. The Haaretz editorial points out that most of the international community believes there’s no rush with Iran, and the 2007 US intelligence report stating that Iran had suspended its program in 2003 solidified this idea, although Israel strongly disagrees. The Haaretz editors write:

Since the publication of the intelligence assessment, and the gleeful reactions to it in Tehran, they have come to their senses in Washington and are trying to state things precisely. In appearances in Congress and in the media this month, it has been stressed repeatedly that the important dimensions are in fact the other two of the three: the production of fissionable material and the development of ground-to-ground missiles that are intended to carry the warhead.

The Haaretz editors are pessimistic about the chances of sanctions succeeding against Iran no matter who is elected US President. But there’s no question that Iran is watching the campaign with interest.

Obama’s rhetoric is designed to assure supporters of Israel that he is not soft on Iran, and that he isn’t naive enough to think that diplomacy alone will solve the situation. But by invoking intensification of sanctions as the answer (the only answer?), he shows naivete about the inherent difficulties and limitations of that approach. He is so intent to avoid saber-rattling that his words appear to eliminate any military threat whatsoever.

In contrast, McCain understands the the time-honored principle of the big stick. He also has the added benefit of a personal history that conveys an inherent “warrior” message; the big stick is assumed to always be at the ready with McCain. A recent Spiegel interview with McCain (see also Part I) contains his message to the Iranian leaders:

SPIEGEL: Would you like to see Germany reduce trade with Iran?

McCain: I think we have to punish Iran to force them to abandon their current course.

SPIEGEL: Would you be willing to talk to people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

McCain: As long as Iran continues to announce its dedication to making the state of Israel extinct and as long as the country continues to pursue the use of nuclear weapons, I will continue to say that is not an acceptable situation. I will work with other democracies in order to find incentives and punishments for the Iranians.

SPIEGEL: Is war a legitimate instrument of politics?

McCain: Every nation has the right to defend itself. That is a fundamental right.

SPIEGEL: This reminds us of your biography….

Note the different emphasis. Although we can assume that Obama’s interview with Ynet represents his strongest statement on the subject of Iran, it differs greatly from McCain’s in both its emphasis and its force.

The distinction is far from trivial. It reflects a difference in philosophy about vital matters: the deterability of the mullahs and their ultimate intent, the effectiveness of diplomacy in dealing with such a regime, the ability of the nations of the world to agree on the threat and act together to counter it, and the conditions under which force should be used or even mentioned. In these respects, it appears that Obama and McCain live in different universes.