Peace at what cost?
American popular opinion currently favors Arizona's efforts to enforce its sovereign border with Mexico, but imagine what the polls would say if rockets were being fired into the US from, say, Tijuana. In fact, forget the polls for a moment, imagine what actions the US would justifiably take. Does a blockade to prevent stocks of rockets reaching Tijuana spring to mind? In fact, forget the blockade too. Does military action to eradicate the enemy make sense? I'm pretty sure that medals for "Couageous Restraint" would not be at the top of our To Do List. Who, reading these words, doubts that we would be entirely justified in acting forcefully to defend our borders and our people? And who doubts that we would be justified in explaining to our critics the infinite number of ways in which they could go pound sand.
This morning, Israeli forces fought and killed four Palistenian men in wet suits off the Gaza coast. The militant group, Al-Awash Martyr's Brigade has already said that the men were part of their marine unit, conducting a "training" mission. A spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force adds that at least 10 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel in recent weeks.
And what are we doing about it? According to John Bolton in today's New York Post, at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, we joined in condemning Israel's nuclear program notwithstanding the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the treaty. Meanwhile, treaty signatory Iran suffered no such condemnation. Being an enemy of the US, under the Obama administration, can be troublesome, but being a friend can be downright lethal.
Our actions are having the result of alienating Israel, which is not a terribly smart thing to do. This is different from sending the bust of Churchill back to Great Britain, or handing the Queen an I-pod. That was dumb. This is dangerous. By abandoning our friends, we embolden our enemies. When Jimmy Carter tried this approach, the result was Americans held hostage in Iran, and Red Army marching into Afghanistan.
Today, Iran continues unmolested in its quest for nuclear weapons and has offered to escort another boat's effort to break the Israeli blockade. By adding to the isolation Israel finds itself in for its efforts to defend itself, the administration is making things more dangerous. In the immortal words of Captain Jack Sparrow, "Not good!"
In today's New York Times, Ross Douthat quotes Walter Russell Mead as saying that Israel may have to, "...pay virtually the full price for peace ... without getting full peace." Would those terms be acceptable to Americans?
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Peace at what cost?
I greatly fear that the chief impact of the Obama foreign policy will be the emboldening, and unleashing, of all those hitherto restrained forces of political evil in the world; perhaps most of all in the Middle East.
It is a very serious thing for "the World's Policeman" (whether we like the role or not) to be, or even appear, unwilling to use force for good. It means that force will only be used for evil.
Re: Peace at what cost?
Dave,
I'm confused by your account of history. Do you really think that Islamist student radicals who participated in the Iranian revolution seized the American embassy because Jimmy Carter "emboldened" them to do so? This doesn't square with the account given by the hostage takers themselves, or any scholarship I've ever seen on the Iranian hostage crisis, but maybe you can point me to a source I haven't seen.
I'd also contest the assertion that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because Jimmy Carter abandoned America's friends and emboldened our enemies. Were that the case, however, its actually an instance where emboldening our enemy would've significantly weakened them, given how disastrously the Afghan invasion turned out to be for the USSR.
Tom, given Obama's deployment of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, his prosecution of continuing operations in Iraq, his drone strikes in Afghanistan, and even his pirate hostage rescue, I fail to see how you can conclude that his foreign policy is characterized by an unwillingness to use force for good.
May '10
Re: Peace at what cost?
Much like the Tijuana example, one might ask the Turks if they would countenance the Israelis (or any nation) underwriting a airlift of "supplies" to the PKK in Eastern Turkey or Northern Iraq. Does anyone honestly think they would let that happen?
Re: Peace at what cost?
Conor, my apologies for taking so long to respond. I'm subject to the demands of the freight, which has taken me to upstate New York tonight.
To your question, I would say that the radical Islamic students who took American hostages in Iran were in a position to do so precisely because the Carter administration abandoned our ally the Shah, and in so doing, emboldened the Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of radical followers which included those students. In his book, Presidential Command, Peter W. Rodman makes the case that the ambivalent signals the administration gave the Shah eventually resulted in his departure from office. There were no such mixed signals when Khomeini arrived in February of 1979 however, with Ambassador Andrew Young saying that Khomeini was, "like some kind of saint," and Ambassador Sullivan comparing him to Ghandi. Yup, I would say such rhetoric can embolden the bad guys, the result of which was the seizing of our embassy the following November.
As for emboldening the Soviets, when the leader of the free world announces that we are finally free of our, "inordinate fear of communism," I don't think they were particularly deterred in the Kremlin, do you? And the Red Army marched.
Tom can speak for himself, but a few points of my own on using force for good. I agree that it was right for Obama to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, though he is deploying fewer than his commanders on the ground requested. The predator drones, if they accomplish the mission, are doing a good thing. Likewise, giving the SEALS the green light to reach out and touch the Somalia pirates was an excellent move. But the feckless approach with Iran, North Korea, and the effort to undercut Israel can undo everything. In this, history is clear.
Edited on June 8, 2010 at 4:58amRe: Peace at what cost?
Dave,
No apologies necessary! And I hope it's been a pleasant drive.
On the Iran hostages, I highly recommend this piece by Mark Bowden, the journalist who wrote Black Hawk Down. For the 2004 article, and a subsequent book, he traveled to Iran and contacted the folks responsible for the hostage taking. Its a fascinating read. Most relevant here: Iran's revolutionary leaders didn't know about the plan to storm the American embassy, the radical students who seized the embassy never intended a prolonged hostage situation, and their purpose was mostly domestic in nature. The student most openly antagonistic to the US, and who claimed credit for the idea of targeting its enemy -- other students wanted to target the USSR -- said he had hated US policies "since high school," which is to say, prior to President Carter's election.
Also, the radical students were demanding that the United States return the Shah to Iran. President Carter refused their demands. He also mounted an unsuccessful military operation to free the hostages.
The Iranian hostage taking was indefensible, as even many of its perpetrators admit, but in hindsight it seems imprudent that the US ever enmeshed itself in domestic Iranian politics. We're still paying.
Jun '10
Re: Peace at what cost?
Conor, Interesting that USSR was considered as a possible target. We can imagine what their response would have been. My guess is quick, violent, and decisive.
I wonder if the lead student may have weighed and contrasted possible responses from the USA under Carter against a response by USSR, and used this comparison as a selling point to move against the US.
I am curious as to your opinion on why the hostages were released when they were. Does the fact that Reagan was coming into office play into it at all, or was that just a coincidence?
May '10
Re: Peace at what cost?
Obama has surprised me occasionally with military committments, but not much.
As I understand it, the heavy reliance on drone strikes is against the advice of our generals, who prefer capturing enemies alive so we can gain valuable intel. It's a reasonable tradeoff (improved intel or risk fewer soldiers), but one I fear Obama made for political reasons.
As for the hostage rescue from the pirates, I recall Obama stonewalling and ultimately taking more credit than he deserved. But my memory is vague on that.
In any case, the damage Obama has done to our alliance with Israel outweighs the good he's done elsewhere. Israel will be at war with one or more neighbors, odds are within the year. Obama's diplomacy might affect the course of that war.
Re: Peace at what cost?
The timing sure makes it seem that way, but I've never actually dug into the question, so I don't know -- I much preferred Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, especially with regard to the Soviet Union, though I think conservatives often forget American complicity in South American tyrannies during his presidency, his (prudent) willingness to negotiate with the USSR, and the fact that he negotiated with Iranian terrorists, involving us in a weapons deal with them partly to get back American hostages they were holding in Lebanon.
On foreign policy matters, I am constantly amazed by the ahistorical narratives clung to by liberals and conservatives alike, and I think the most common mistake in the foreign policy thinking of Americans is imagining that the rhetoric American presidents employ for domestic consumption is somehow the determining factor in how world governments interact with us.
May '10
Re: Peace at what cost?
While it may not be the determining factor, wouldn't it at least be one of the factors? It isn't like when the President speaks on domestic matters that it isn't available for the rest of the world to see. With current technology, anything he says to the American people is out there for everyone to see. Because of the United States' status in the world, his words (whether meant for domestic or foreign consumption) are taken as the general character of our country. Governments from around the world can, and probably do, make decisions based on what is said. Whether you be an ally or an enemy, why would you not use how an American President interacts and speaks to his own people as a determining factor in how you will interact with the United States?