As the human tragedy unfolds in Lebanon — by at least one estimate, one out of every eight Lebanese has been displaced by the fighting — Americans are struggling with our role. Should we attempt to broker a ceasefire? Should we join a UN peacekeeping mission in the region? Should we expand the war to Syria or Iran? Should we do nothing at all?

That last option appears to be the Bush administration’s policy. The president and his advisers have repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. They have discouraged talk of a ceasefire, and they seem equally skeptical of an expanded role for a UN peacekeeping force that has been in southern Lebanon since 1978. They have yet to publicly embrace a war with Syria or Iran, perhaps recognizing that the U.S. military has its hands full in Iraq right now.

For many Americans, choosing not to do something implies that the U.S. government doesn’t care about what is happening. But that isn’t accurate. Our government has a responsibility to the U.S. citizens there, and is actively involved in helping to extricate any who wish to leave. Other countries are doing the same for their citizens in the region. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I also believe it is in the U.S. interest to avoid further military involvement, and I am particularly skeptical of calls to widen the war to Syria or Iran. (more…)

Remember stateless terrorism? Those individual actors and shadowy networks that represented the gravest danger of the 21st century? Those 19 hijackers armed only with knives and boxcutters (and probably mace and pepper spray)?

One of the interesting things about our post-9/11 world is how reflexively states – especially the U.S. – have combatted terrorism by attacking states. Of course, the prime example of this is our attack on Iraq, a state whose only connection to 9/11 was, well, that Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy who (along with a lot of other really bad guys) was “destabilizing” the Middle East.

But what of Israel’s conflict with Hizbollah, and its attacks on Lebanon (a state recently heralded for its supposedly tight embrace of democracy)? I have heard Hizbollah referred to as the terrorism A team, a state within a state, a transnational Shia resistance group, and a pawn of Iran and (Sunni) Syria. I have heard that Hizbollah overreached and invited its own destruction, Hizbollah has rallied the Lebanese people to its side, or that Syria and Iran are skillfully spawning more regional chaos.

Surely there is some overlap between these seemeing contradictions, but they also represent an incomplete understanding – five years after 9/11 – about just what a terrorist group is, who should be held responsible for acts of terrorism, and above all how we should respond. After 9/11, we heard a lot about how we would be facing a new kind of war. Instead, we seem to be slipping into the oldest kinds of war in the Middle East.

Let’s not fool ourselves. It is not an outbreak of fighting we are seeing in Lebanon right now. It is war. Even if it ends tomorrow it will still be war. And there is no likelihood that is going to happen. Like all wars it is an atrocity. Innocents are killed in both Lebanon and Israel. Fleeing refugees are blown to bits by Israeli jets near the border. Israelis are killed in rocket attacks in Haifa. An Israeli warship is hit and Lebanese soldiers are killed by Israeli attacks. Societies are shattered, physically and emotionally. So, the only appropriate response is to try and stop it. But thus far, President Bush declines even to call for a cease fire.

Vapid rhetoric about how Israel has a right to defend itself or how Hezbollah is just acting in defense of Palestinians in Gaza is not useful. Neither is uninformed neoconservative commentary about how now is the time to go after Syria or Iran.  Let’s be honest, in terms of cool headed appraisals of national interest, which are the only useful ones to engage in, it profits the United States nothing to see another war in the Middle East. Especially now, given our forces in Iraq, and our “long war” on terrorist which, by default, includes much of the Middle East.  Frankly, we do not have the military or economic resources to deal with it now. Our current multi-front war has already put a severe strain on our military. (more…)

Watching the violence in the Middle East unfold, I cannot help but feel that Israel is making the same mistake as the Bush administration in responding to terrorism. After the September 11th attacks, America had the moral legitimacy and sympathy of the world on its side. The Bush administration intelligently used this worldwide support to build a case against the Taliban and then it brought military force against the regime in a targeted and skillful way. But then the Bush administration began seeing its role and legitimacy to act well beyond the contours of self-defense. Even though Iraq had ambiguous ties at best to September 11th and no certified weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration tried to use this link to justify its war. Although the administration quickly won the combat, thanks to a robust military strategy of “shock and awe,” America soon realized that it was quickly losing the battle for hearts and minds

Although a very different case, I fear that Israel may be making a similar error in judgment.  Yes, Israel may have the military strength to shock and awe its neighbors, and yes a strong response to Hezbollah is justified, but to the extent Israel diverges from a targeted path and begins using its shock and awe capacity more widely against innocent Lebanese citizens by bombing their airports and bridges, it runs the risk of quickly wiping out its international sympathy and losing the war of ideas. Worse yet, just like America’s war in Iraq, Israel runs the risk of furthering the cause of insurgents and widening the conflict. As this week’s Time reports:
…there is a real risk that the move may have the same unintended consequence of the raid 38 years ago: pushing Lebanon further into a spiral of internal strife and even a civil war that embroils the entire Middle East.