Thursday, July 27, 2006 America's credibility will be a casualty of Israel's war Whatever reasons arabs ever had to trust washington are going up in smoke By Marc J Sirois Daily Star staff First person Marc J. Sirois
Lebanon is being systematically dismantled by one of the world's most fearsome military machines, and the bombs are not just wrecking Lebanese infrastructure and killing Lebanese children: They are also making a shambles of US credibility in the Middle East. Washington's effort to pose as an even-handed broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been a ridiculous affectation, but George W. Bush's reaction to the war that started on July 12 has set new standards for a public fiction that no one likes to mention. In essence, Bush and his administration have decided that the primary goal of US policy at this juncture should be to buy time for Israel so it can keep pummeling its hapless neighbor. At the same time, however, the United States claims an unshakable commitment to the Lebanese people and professes to be concerned about the survival of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. This self-evident contradiction is just the latest permutation of America's long history of trying to have it both ways, so it has not exposed a sinister "secret angle" of US policy. It has intensified speculation, however, as to precisely what that policy is. Bush's drive to "democratize" the Middle East has largely been reduced to obligatory rhetoric, which is a good thing because his linguistic deficiencies are not nearly so deadly as some of his other failings. The misbegotten project in Iraq has plunged that country into a maelstrom of sectarian bloodshed, but it has had the salutary effect of demonstrating the folly of neoconservative ideas about reordering the region according to fancy instead of managing it based on fact. It must not have dawned on Bush (not much does) that while Saddam Hussein was no teddy bear, he was to Iraq what Josip Broz Tito was to Yugoslavia: someone strong enough - and, yes, brutal enough - to keep disparate ethnic and religious communities from going for each other's throats. He likely never imagined, either, that Iraq's Shiite population might not be especially trusting of him after they were encouraged to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and then left to twist in the wind. He seems at least and at last to understand that knocking off the government of a sovereign nation is not an endeavor into which even an unrivaled superpower can enter lightly. This is unfortunate from the Bushian perspective, because two of its leading candidates for "regime change," Iran and Syria, are still guided by leaderships that refuse to acquiesce in US/Israeli hegemony over the region. The ease with which Saddam was dislodged had to be unsettling to both Tehran and Damascus, but they breathe easier now in the belief that the subsequent spectacle of national disintegration in Iraq has had a chastening effect on Bush's grand plans. What remains to be seen is how far the standoff over Iran's nuclear program can go before the unpleasantness in Iraq is no longer sufficient to keep America's horns drawn in. This brings us back to Lebanon, where scenarios for a possible flare-up between Israel and Hizbullah have been bandied about for months. One burning question was whether, in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Hizbullah would come to the aid of its sponsor by lashing out at the Jewish state with its arsenal of rockets and mostly crude missiles. This led thoughtful observers to ponder another possibility: Might the Israelis try to eliminate Hizbullah beforehand so as not to be distracted when and if they decided it was time to deal with Iran? One theory was that a pretext would be desirable so that pre-emption could be made to look like retribution. Enter a squad of Israeli reservists sent to patrol a border within spitting distance of a resistance movement that had sworn to capture more Israeli soldiers in hopes of exchanging them for a Lebanese militant whose release was part of a previous deal on which the Jewish state partially reneged at the last minute. Hizbullah snatched two of them, and within minutes the Israelis began the massive display of firepower that continues to ravage Lebanon and the Lebanese. As it turns out, Israeli strategy has failed several times over. The captured troops are no closer to being released, northern Israel has sustained more damage than ever before, and Hizbullah has so far understood clearly - and wielded skillfully - the fact that in order to win, all it has to do is not lose. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert painted himself into a corner from the beginning, first by vowing that he would not negotiate, then by escalating so swiftly and so thoroughly that he now has very little leverage with which to turn the screws on either Hizbullah or the Siniora government: With so much of the country in ruins, there are few dire consequences left to threaten. To make matters worse, the manner in which he has undertaken indirect negotiations has followed the usual Israeli tactic of trying to impose a pre-determined outcome. This has served only to harden Hizbullah's resolve. Barring the possibility that the impact of special "bunker-buster" bombs delivered straight from US military stores will be even greater politically than physically, the situation is approaching a dead-end for both the United States and Israel. Hizbullah has a very good chance of emerging from the war with its prestige at an all-time high in the Arab world and its influence in Lebanon possibly enhanced. Washington's friends in Amman, Cairo and Riyadh face a loss of even more legitimacy in Arab eyes for having failed to demonstrate sufficient solidarity with a beleaguered Lebanon and a tiny fighting force that has restored Arab pride. Israel's military will still be useful as a deterrent against conventional war, but its utility as a means of confronting professional irregulars will come out looking like the proverbial "paper tiger." And the original fear that Hizbullah might intervene in an Israeli-Iranian confrontation will still be a well-founded one. With their options evaporating, there is reason to fear that the United States and Israel would actually welcome a wider war. Bush has repeatedly opened the door for an Israeli attack on Syria, but Olmert has thus far demurred. He has little to fear from Syria, so a "pre-emptive" attack would serve only to reinforce his government's reputation as a serial de-stabilizer of the entire region. Iran is another matter: Israel has long viewed the Islamic Republic as an existential threat, and an outwardly successful campaign there might distract the Israeli public from what is shaping up as a costly - and criminal - enterprise in Lebanon. But if and when the Israeli hammer falls on Iran, the answer is liable to make Hizbullah's essentially tactical arsenal look like a toy by comparison. The odds of a regional free-for-all will increase exponentially. What happens then is anyone's guess. Bush and Olmert deserve their fate because it is largely self-inflicted. The US government has acted too duplicitously and too myopically for too long to expect that anyone in this part of the world still trusts American promises. The Israelis should understand by now that blowing things up is not a suitable substitute for talking things out. In addition, those Arab regimes that long ago sold their political souls in exchange for American protection are speeding toward irrelevancy. But what of Siniora? He has struggled mightily to keep Lebanon on an even keel, only to see his hopes dashed by Hizbullah's poor judgment, Israel's devastating riposte, and America's heartless intransigence. He deserves better. In all fairness, what of the Israeli people? No one expects them to choose new leaders who will grovel and cower like those who accepted abuse in Europe until the Holocaust forged a very different attitude, but most of the policies pursued by Israeli governments since 1948 have served only to maintain the enmity of the Jewish state's Arab neighbors. Parents should not have to fear for their children's lives because their leaders are obsessed with proving how tough they are. And what of the long-suffering Lebanese people? They asked for none of this, and yet their lives are being ended, ruined or thrown into turmoil. No one should be surprised if a substantial number of the children who survive this latest nightmare grow up determined to exact revenge against those who inflicted gratuitous violence on their loved ones, those who helped them do it, and those who remained silent. Who could blame them? And who could be so naive as to ask the world's most obtuse question: "Why do they hate us?" Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of The Daily Star. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
