Irrationality
of War and Diplomacy
By Dr Shakil Akhtar
Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Modernity takes great pride in being a rational
enterprise of the West. In terms of decision making
and organizational structures the armed forces
and foreign relations organizations are touted
as the most rational setups, where ideology, altruism,
and emotions have little room. The twin organizations
are supposed to be motivated by nothing but national
interests. And yet, America's war in Iraq and
now its proxy war in Lebanon defy any rational
explanation.
All 'rational' justifications for the Iraq war,
like the threat of weapons of mass destruction,
and Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda etc., proffered
by the administration and uncritically accepted
by the mass media have crumbled one by one. The
war in Iraq has served no national interest of
the United States; neither strategic nor diplomatic.
In fact, on both these counts the American fortunes
have suffered due to its open-ended military commitment
without a clear positive objective. Iraq is now
a quagmire, with no exit strategy at hand; billions
of tax payer's dollars are being spent not to
pursue any positive American interests but just
to save Iraq from breaking up, sinking into a
declared civil war, turning into a staging ground
for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, and
becoming a battle ground for proxy wars among
regional players like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
and Israel. Even on these negative objectives
the United States seems to be losing inch by inch
on daily basis. Prospects of a full blown civil
war are greater today than a year ago, the danger
of breakup of Iraq on ethnic/sectarian lines is
looming not receding, terrorists and insurgents
are gaining ground in the form of death squads,
and among the regional powers Iran has a strong
foothold in Iraq, and Israel has developed close
relations with Kurdish leadership, to the chagrin
of another ally, Turkey. Did this country go to
war to promote Iranian and Israeli interests or
to gain something for itself?
Instead of learning anything from mistakes in
Iraq, the United States has now opened the doors
of hell for another war in another Arab country,
from where Israel, not the United States, have
been facing some military challenge from a non-state
entity called Hizbollah. Israel has its own rationale
for wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure
of Lebanon, and the killings of hundreds of children,
women, and the sick in homes, air raid shelters,
buses, hospitals and ambulances. The question
is what American interests are being served by
providing military and diplomatic support to Israel
in this war?
Israel's war in Lebanon is supposed be a part
of America's war on terrorism, it's aimed at putting
an end to Syrian abetment in terrorism, it's a
war to stem Iranian radicalism through Shia terrorist
organizations like Hizbollah, it's the exercise
of Israel's right to defend itself, and it's a
war to strengthen democratic government in Beirut
against the evil influence of a terrorist organization.
All of them may be legitimate foreign policy objectives,
but can they be achieved by the policy options
undertaken by the administration recently? There
is reason to doubt.
How Israel's relentless bombardment of Lebanon's
civilian infrastructure and the killings of thousands
of hapless civilians with American made bombs
and diplomatic support is going to create any
goodwill for America? Or this abetment in carnage
will further erode American credibility, and diminish
its ability to influence events through diplomacy?
The probability is the war is doing more harm
to America than good, at least in the short run.
The US State Department lists Hizbollah as a terrorist
organization but America has taken no military
action against it because the organization does
not threaten the United States. Its activities
are Israel-specific and remain confined to Lebanon.
To that extent Israel's war on Lebanon cannot
be treated as a part of America's war on terror,
as, say, Sri Lanka's war against Tamil Tigers
is not America's war on terrorism, though LTTE
is on the US State Department's list of terrorist
organizations.
Also terrorism is politically motivated violence
targeting civilians. Hizbollah attacked an Israeli
military post, killed eight soldiers and abducted
two. This act can be condemned for various reasons
but cannot be termed as an act of terrorism even
under the FBI definition, because the target was
military and not civilian. This is not to exonerate
Hizbollah for its other acts of violence aimed
at Israeli civilians, which earned it the designation
of a terrorist organization.
A curious irrationality is at work in this context
on another level in US diplomacy. The US supports
the government of Lebanon of which Hizbollah is
an integral component—they hold two cabinet
posts. Also the Secretary of State sees nothing
wrong in meeting Nabi Beri, the Speaker of Lebanese
parliament who is leader of Amal militia, and
an ally of Hizbollah. The US actions have weakened
the Lebanese government by under-cutting its credibility
and probably strengthened Hizbollah.
This war is supposed to be indirectly aimed at
Syria and Iran, the financier-patrons of Hizbollah.
The US-Israel axis wants to use the current crisis
to take the Syrian-Iranian finger out of the Lebanon
pie and make that country dependent on the US
and compliant with Israeli demands. This may be
a legitimate objective of foreign policy in that
region, but how can you hope to achieve it when
you are not willing to talk to anyone of them.
The surrender-first approach has not borne fruit
before nor is it likely to work this time. It
may well turn out to be counter-productive. If
the US puts its own interests ahead of the interests
of its Middle Eastern ally, and follows a rational
approach and not an ideological one it would engage
these countries and defang them.
Hizbollah is not a state, or an army. Its members
do not wear special uniform, they do not have
garrisons, cantonments, staff colleges or other
attributes of a professional army. Deploying the
might of a state and its professional military
with most advanced and lethal weaponry against
an amorphous entity like Hizbollah is like chasing
a housefly with an assault rifle. The chances
are that such a disproportionate use of force
may still let the fly survive but damage much
else in the process. Israel in its shock-n-awe
approach has quickly destroyed Lebanon's civil
infrastructure and has its hands soaked in the
blood of innocent civilians and Hizbollah remains
intact and kicking, lobbing missile into Israeli
cities. The approach so far does not seem to have
worked.
Now, the option is to put an international, preferably
NATO force in southern Lebanon to protect Israel
from Hizbollah attacks, and eventually to disarm
it. What Israel has not been able to achieve in
more than two decades of military action is now
expected to be achieved by an international force.
What country on earth would send in its troops
to fight Hizbollah, and disarm it not for national
interest of its own but that of Israel? Only the
United States has the magnanimity to protect Israel
at the expense of its own interests but then the
US is not willing to be part that international
force.
Give national self-interest and rationality a
chance on the diplomatic and security front, and
let ideology and 'The Lobby' take a back seat.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
