The Art of War

Suppose that your grandfather was uprooted from his homeland when a coalition of military powers arbitrarily created a new state and gave the land to someone else. Suppose that your whole life, you fought for freedom from these occupiers, freedom for your people to govern themselves and determine their own destiny. Faced with the overwhelming military supremacy of your enemy, you resort to asymmetrical warfare to achieve your aims.

As I understand it, this is the story of the Palenstinian people. Displaced, oppressed, and desperate...lacking any political or military strength...they resorted to terrorist tactics. And while I can't condone the killing of innocent people, I do understand how they felt there were no other options.

But then, after decades of fighting, a peace is reached. A Palestinian country is created, Israel abandons Gaza and makes plans to abandon the West Bank as well. Billions in humanitarian aid are provided by Israel, the US, and other countries long considered enemies. Two generations of battle against one of the most sophisticated and ruthless intelligence and military forces in the world have finally come to an end. You have achieved your goal.

Then Hamas crosses into Israel, killing one soldier and kidnapping another. Hezbollah follows suit. Why? The war is already won, the stated strategic objectives have been achieved.

Israel responds by laying waste to Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah have managed to kill or capture a handful of Israelis, while the IDF is destroying Gaza and Lebanon at will. Hundreds of the people they fought to free have been killed. Billions of dollars in structural damage - let alone lost economic activity - have been inflicted on those two countries. Any progress that was made toward true freedom, the kind that can only come with economic and political stability, is hopelessly lost. Are a handful of Israeli captives worth this sacrifice?

What are the strategic goals of Hamas and Hezbollah anyway? Any idea? Do they really think that poking a sleeping bear with a stick will do more damage to the bear than to them? What rationality invites self-destruction as a means of warfare?

The sad truth is that the leaders of these organizations, and the radical clerics who support them is this: they are all irrelevant in times of peace. They are men who crave power, but they are not the type of men that win peaceful elections. They are the type of men that people turn to when an ugly job needs to be done.

You wouldn't vote Tony Soprano into the White House, just like Abe Lincoln wouldn't be your first choice of a partner in an back-alley brawl. These men feed on fear and unrest. As long as there is turmoil, as long as there is an enemy, as long as they can convince their fellow countrymen that an ugly job remains to be done...they will have the power they crave.

Note that the parallel to George W. Bush picking a war with Iraq, then being elected to a second term as president, is not lost on me. Even though I voted for Kerry, the actions of my Commander-in-Chief are implicity condoned by myself and my fellow Americans. Maybe I should beat the pre-nuclear-war rush and move to Australia. What do you say, honey?