A highly thoughtful analysis of what needs to be done.
Lao Tzu in the Art of War notes that a country should only go to war under three conditions:The first is having a specific, clear cut and achievable goal. If there are vague and/or multiple goals, then there is no objective measure for what it means to win the war. Without such a measure the war will drag on. Which leads to the the second condition: the goal must be achievable in a short amount of time, and there must be a clear time frame for ending the war. Any war that drags on will invariably have costs that exceed any benefit, even if eventually the goal is achieved. Finally, war should only be the last resort. It is always more beneficial to try to achieve your goal without going to war.
Based on these conditions, it is easy to see that the 2006 Lebanon war (or the Iraq war or…the list goes on and on) should never have happened in the first place . Israel had multiple goals (free the soldiers, damage Hezbollah, teach a lesson to Hamas via damaging Hezbollah and so on) and also no clear cut time frame to end the war. Moreover, many of the goals could have been and eventually were solved without going to war. If you click on my Snappy Answers tag (on the right) you can see my comments at the time, many of which are still relevant.
According to this analysis in the New York Times today, Israel seems not to have learned any lessons. The Times reporter is told that the goal of the war is “to stop the firing against our civilians in the south and shape a different and new security situation there.” While the first half of the sentence is very specific, the second is far more vague. And what defines “different and new” if the goal is not to overthrow the Hamas government (which Israel claims it does not want to do)? Then the article goes on to talk about Israel’s desire to re-establish its mythical “deterrent capability.” And let’s throw into the mix Livni and Barak’s political ambitions.
Most importantly, since everyone involved was well aware of the fact that the cease fire would expire on the 19th of December, why weren’t the previous months spent in diplomatic activity to extend the cease fire and more importantly, expand it to broader agreements? We all know the answer to that question: Bush & Co. They just weren’t interested in pushing that process along.
Hopefully the new Obama administration will be. I am not concerned that Obama is not making any comments at this point. Why play your cards when you aren’t even at the table yet? And while Hillary Clinton may have talked hawkish on Israel during her years as a New York Senator, let’s not forget it was her husband who arm twisted Bibi Netanyahu to do something even Rabin or Peres weren’t willing or able to do: partially withdraw from Hebron. One point to note is this: Google CEO Eric Shmidt who is on Obama’s transition team, is also chairman of the New America Foundation. Daniel Levy, whose article is cited above, is a senior fellow at that foundation.
Tags: Hamas, Israeli Army