This Is Why There's No Peace

Yet another episode is unfolding in the deadly and virtually continuous battle between Israel and Palestine-based Hamas.  After the Egyptian-negotiated truce broke down just over a week ago, Hamas and Israel attacked each other brutally, with death tolls rising fast.  Spectators around the world are sure to ask two major questions in assessing the conflict: 1. Who started it? and 2. How do we fix it?

A big problem is that discussions about the conflict stop at the first question, whose answer has definite implications for the second one: whoever is at fault will pay an enormous price in answering the second, through international sanctions or otherwise.

Probably the biggest contributors to the lack of a clear-cut answer as to who is the culprit in violating the terms of the previous cease-fire are long-held and blatant biases against either Israel or Hamas that are present in virtually every piece of reporting on record.  For example, Iranian press has released their version of a timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian fight that attributes basically no blame to Hamas and vilifies Israel.  On the other hand, Israel has barred international press from covering the unfolding story in Gaza, according to the Kansas City Star.

However, when we trim the fat from both sides of this story and cut to the meat, we can see some emerging truths: 

1. Hamas has incentive to copy the Hezbollah attacks of 2006 that led to international condemnation of Israel's overwhelming response and a strengthening of Hezbollah.  If the international community responds to this wave of Israeli military action in the same way as it did, Hamas will gain much.  Hamas has almost nothing to lose in inciting a conflict, because it is fighting from a position of relative weakness in a densely populated area.  It would seem, as Michael B. Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi argue, that Hamas "needs" Israel to retaliate against the Gaza Strip and kill its own people.

2. Israel has a legitimate case that it has tried to negotiate with Hamas and even sought diplomatic means to resolve the current conflict after Hamas launched 300 or so rockets into southern Israel after the truce ended (ibid).

3. Hamas' own creed is dedicated to violence and war: according to Stephen Farrell of the New York Times, "[Hamas] has preached to Palestinians the rejectionist credo that Fatah negotiated with Israel and got nowhere; Hamas’s way of armed force, it argued year in and year out, was the only way."  Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I think Hamas is to blame for the most recent flare-up.  And yet, while to me it appears that Hamas is the instigator in this conflict, Arab journalists and governments would most likely claim that my news sources are "puppets of the Zionist regime" or some other, similar, probably ridiculous notion.  Therein lies the problem: I probably couldn't convince your everyday Palestinian that its government is wrong, especially after he or she has been told for years that Israelis are evil, have no right to exist, and should be killed through jihad.  All they see are the tanks that enter Gaza, not the rockets that fly out.

The bleak truth behind the answer to Question Number Two is this: both Israel and Palestinian interests are indivisible--they do not allow for compromise--and neither side will ever say that it is responsible for the constant bloodshed in the Middle East.  Either Arabs across the Middle East recognize Israel's right to exist, a lot of people are forced to move from their homes, or a lot of people will continue to die riding the bus to work or cooking dinner for their families.  Thank God we live in the United States.

Robert Gates: The Man with the Plan

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently wrote in his Foreign Affairs article “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,” the United States’ national defense strategy needs significant overhaul to effectively fight the Global War on Terror (GWOT).  The necessity of American military dominance remains a top priority, and to ensure it, more effort must made to alter our methods of fighting terrorist extremists in “small wars” throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

As Gates suggests, our new defense strategy should be configured to deter conventional military threats from aggressive rogue states like Iran and North Korea while at the same time combating irregular warfare tactics and dismantling terrorist groups piece by piece (Gates).  His proposed changes seem to parallel those made by the Kennedy Administration in 1961 in response to the perceived shortcomings of the Eisenhower Administration’s “New Look” defense policy.  While the New Look policy focused on the threat of American massive retaliatory nuclear attack to deter the Soviet Union, Kennedy’s “flexible response” idea emphasized an ability to fight in several different capacities in regional theaters to deter the former USSR.  

The idea of massive retaliatory attack (in this case by conventional means) -- that is, that we can “shock and awe” terrorists into submission -- must be used selectively.  We must take advantage of new and innovative technology in the GWOT, but in a way that emphasizes low-key counterinsurgency tactics.  We cannot afford to fight in a manner that might fuel terrorist groups’ recruiting agendas.  Osama bin Laden repeats the belief over and over again in his 1996 fatwa, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” that the “infidels” are on a crusade against Muslims and Muslim lands (“Bin Laden’s Fatwa”).  Overuse of our technological advantages over terrorist groups can hurt more than it helps in the battle for the “hearts and minds,” as it stokes the fires that keep these dangerous beliefs alive.  We must combat these groups quietly and forcefully.

In order to be both quiet and forceful, we need to utilize what Gates refers to as “foreign military assistance.”  The United States, he writes, must “employ indirect approaches -- primarily through building the capacity of partner governments and their security forces” (Gates).  It is an unsustainable policy to attempt to tear down and then rebuild every rogue state that crosses us.  The US must, as Gates says, help train foreign peoples to stop terrorism at its roots.  In doing so, we can combat our enemies by proxy and give a sense of ownership in the GWOT to other peoples who desire to stop Al Qaeda and others in their tracks.

With Gates’ voice sure to influence policy decisions made by President-elect Barack Obama, the United States’ defense strategy is in the right hands, with a smart and sustainable future ahead of it.

Sources:

Gates, Robert.  “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.”  Foreign Affairs.  January/February 2009.  <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88103-p0/robert-m-gates/a-balanced-strategy.html>.  12/17/08.

“Bin Laden’s Fatwa.”  PBS Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.  <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html>.  12/17/08.

To Be or Not to Be?

In regard to Detroit's Big Three automakers, the question lingers in the minds of many Americans, especially those whose jobs are at stake.  The Big Three are in Washington to beg for bailout money, and the situation with our nation's automakers is so dire that it spurred United Auto Workers union president Ron Gettelfinger to claim, "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month."  Senator Chris Dodd even said, "We're looking at a death sentence."

Do we let the Big Three live or die, as it were?  This dilemma may be a turning point in American history. Whether or not our home-grown auto manufacturers will remain in business will depend almost entirely on what Congress decides to do in the coming week.  The implications of Congress' decision will be enormous.  A bailout with strings attached for restructuring based on the demands of Congress would mean that our government would now virtually control two of our major industries: banking and auto manufacturing.  Without a bailout, these companies probably won't generate enough capital to survive the winter.

Do we virtually absorb these failing companies to prevent the loss of thousands more American jobs at a time when unemployment has reached 6.7% nationwide and looks to climb in the coming months?  Or, do we let these companies fail, the consequences be darned, and maintain the integrity of our capitalist system (which is in serious danger already)?  As usual, there's no clean-cut "yes" or "no."

Regardless of what happens this next week, changes will have to be made in the industry: either lower wages (despite the UAW), lower CEO pay (Rick Wagoner received a pay increase this year at GM), and a new business plan that is capable of adapting to current demands and markets (although Reps. Henry Waxman and Barney Frank don't have MBAs, contrary to the beliefs of Reps. Henry Waxman and Barney Frank), or no wages, no CEO pay, and no business plan.

I have low confidence in Congress' ability to run major corporations.  They seemed to be high on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were on the verge of collapse.  Of course, GM, Ford, and Chrysler seemed to be high on GM, Ford, and Chrysler until recently.  When the only alternatives are bad, you have to pick your poison: Congress should offer the bailout in order to restructure the business.  I fear, however, that this is not the end of these types of deals.