The Israeli Option in Strategy

[SteveMetz]

I wanted to pick up an idea I tossed out in another thread and elevate it to it's own. I've kind of been playing with it for a few years.

Here's the gist: one of the foundation assumptions of current American strategy is that most people around the world like us hence we can and should work through local partners to win "hearts and minds." We realize there are "evil" people who don't like us but we figure we can counter them with strategic communications or information operations, and by "empowering moderates" (largely defined as people who ARE favorably inclined towards us). This may simply be a false assumption.

I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

These two alternative assumptions suggest very different overarching strategies. The first suggests our current strategy--empower moderates, use strategic communications and information operations, strengthen local partners and win hearts and minds. The second would certainly take friends where they exist, but not try to pretend that they exist everywhere. Instead it would basically say, "You don't want to be our friend, fine. But if you generate projectable power that might be used against us or our friends, we're going to drop out of the sky, bust it up, then leave. Many times across many decades if necessary. If you, on your volition, change your mind and want to be our friend, give us a call."

[tequila]

I'm in broad agreement with you that we need to understand that differing interests exist and these cannot always be bridged by a bigger, better IO strategy. That's why we have diplomacy and professional negotiators, and sometimes why we reassess our definition of "national interest".

Disagree with the idea that Zeus' thunderbolt is the answer. This will, in the end, lead to far greater engagement with the world as the thunderbolt will be called upon to attack any possible threat. Any other country that is near a thunderbolt capability of their own is an impossible strategic threat and must be neutralized, else they use a similar strategy on us.

Also this idea seems to require foreign policy consistency across decades. I submit that this is pretty much impossible in any country and perhaps least of all with American democracy.

[SteveMetz]

Disagree with the idea that Zeus' thunderbolt is the answer. This will, in the end, lead to far greater engagement with the world as the thunderbolt will be called upon to attack any possible threat. Any other country that is near a thunderbolt capability of their own is an impossible strategic threat and must be neutralized, else they use a similar strategy on us.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to suggest that our policymakers will be unable to distinguish real threats which demand actions from those which do not. That may at times be true, but that holds whether we are implementing our current strategy of trying to stabilize and transform conflictive regions or not. Phrased differently, I think we have two different concepts: I'm suggesting an alternative WAY to apply power, not alternative criteria for WHEN we apply power.

[tequila]

I suppose I'm arguing a bit that an "Israeli" strategy when applied to the U.S. will basically assume the essential hostility of many world actors unnecessarily. This will, as always, lead to an inflation of the risk posed by such actors once they have been deemed as such - basic institutional prerogatives dictate this, especially once the commitment to a defensive crouch combined with an aggressive first strike deterrence policy comes into effect.

Fleeing engagement for Fortress America will of necessity reduce our toolkit for dealing our enemies in a nonviolent fashion. That is, after all, part of the appeal. However this, inevitably, leads to a more violent engagement as the rest of the world begins to look more and more hostile the more we withdraw from it.

edit: Also, from my response in the other thread:


The Israeli strategy also is predicated on what is, in essence, a reactive and defensive posture towards the region. Israel cannot directly influence any of its neighbors and has no pretensions to do so. The U.S., as strategic superpower, is economically and militarily involved with hundreds of nations and actors. Withdrawing from this into a Fortress America setup would require a massive institutional reset on the part of the U.S. and indeed a substantial cultural shift. It's hard to see this happening.

[Stu-6]

I think the communication problem is internal. We have a set of beliefs about ourselves (we are the good guys supporting freedom and democracy etc etc), we view our actions though the prism of these beliefs, which causes us to have an excessively positive opinion of them. Others not subscribing to these beliefs see out actions in a much harsher light. This problem becomes most obvious with what you called strengthen local partners. Seeing these partners though our prism we tend to think of them as the best choice among bad options. Often the locals will view these partners though their own beliefs, often a more honest view, and many times end up seeing them as just a bad choice. Which leads them to think the US talks all of this wonderful stuff about freedom and human rights but is allies with terrible men, therefore the US is not to be trusted. Examples of this can be seen in the Shaw in Iran, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc.


Back to the root of this thread the problem with the Israeli option is that it can never end, making it a strategy of perpetual war. While the Israelis are dominate for now, they can never enjoy it and almost certainly they can not keep it up forever. While the Arab states are so dysfunctional that they can do little more the bluster; the Palestinians are with in Israeli’s borders, mad as hell, have nothing to lose, and perhaps most importantly have an expanding population. As the Doors said “they got the guns but we got the number Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over”.

The Israelis are strong but they can’t fight forever. Out of necessity their strategy works for now but it won’t last. If we model ourselves on them we doom ourselves to a similar fate.

[SteveMetz]

Back to the root of this thread the problem with the Israeli option is that it can never end, making it a strategy of perpetual war.

True, but that raises another question: is the traditional American conceptualization of war that sees it as a discrete event with a clear beginning and end applicable in today's world? Or have we entered an age of perpetual war whether we like it or not?

Phrased differently, are we trying to operate in an age of perpetual war with a strategy based on episodic war?

[JJackson]

I am British and not a fan of US foreign policy. I would fall into the group that believes the some within the administration are labouring under the impression that much of the anti-American feeling globally is just because ‘they’ don’t get what we are trying to do for them. I think we get it, we just don’t want it.

Tony Blair’s willingness to bend over backwards (or was that forwards?) to align the UK with US policy on a number of issues killed him with the electorate.

What is it that is so unpopular? The US is just trying to make the world safe for democracy and freedom, who could object to that. May be, but that is not what it looks like to the rest of us. A military that is so far in excess of anything any other country would view as necessary to protect itself would be a matter of concern in any age. Changes – mainly post 9/11 – have led more people in countries that would traditionally be neutral or friendly to question the basis for this closeness. The British particularly have had a traditional view that ‘Americans are just like us but with a few bad habits, they ice their beer and put it in whisky’ while the continentals have been the badies in our history books for generations and ‘don’t even speak English’. On closer examination the US is a radically different society; neither its flavour of democracy nor the platforms of either of its main political parties would be acceptable anywhere in Europe. The US’s position on a wide range of issues like the pre-emptive use of force, extraordinary renditions, Gitmo and torture have stunned the rest of us and left us with the view it is not safe to be anything other than a US passport holder, even if you never go anywhere near the USA.

Woe betide any state that is not on the US’s Christmas card list. A state like Iraq or Iran can be portrayed as so wicked they must be militarily rescued for democracy while Saudi Arabia can be a close ally and buy all kinds of high tech weaponry. The CIA has been instrumental in implementing – or trying to implement – regime change all over the world for decades but until recently this has not been openly declared policy and seems domestically to be viewed as perfectly acceptable behaviour, but I suspect it would be less acceptable if Iranian agents were trying to facilitate it in the US, certainly Bin Laden’s efforts were not well received.

I like Rawl’s application of the veil of ignorance as test of prima facia fairness and often apply when considering these kinds of questions. Put the boot on the other foot. Fast-forward 50 years China has used its GDP to out strip the US military, as the US did to the USSR. Your American grandchild is walking down the road in Paris, is bundled into a car, whisked off to a little jungle base in Laos for a bit of water-boarding, then to a converted bulk carrier detention centre anchored in international water off China. Several years later, after a lot of enhance interrogation, your grandchild is released. Never charged, tried or convicted. But hey, they were Chinese, what can you do.

Fair or was I a little harsh?

[John T. Fishel]

Steve, Tequila, and Stu--

This is an interesting discussion, however, the premises on which it is based are empirical questions. How do people see the US? The Pew Global Attitudes project (reported with data as of 2005) in America Against the World by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes is a good place to start. But State Department commissions plenty of current surveys the results of which can be accessed. Another source is Zogby.

The Pew data are mixed. They give a nuanced picture of attitudes in a sample of countries toward US policy and the American people. the problem is that the survey data reported does not cover a lot of the places we are interested in. But there are regional survey research firms that do, such as Latinobarometro in Latin America.

Based on the data I've seen (which is only up to 2005), I would argue that a case can be made for either assumption but not one that would be fully convincing. Nor do I really think that the choice is a dichotomous one.

Cheers

JohnT

[Gian P Gentile]

...I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

This makes sense to me. In fact it clarified some things that I remember about Info Ops while in command in Baghdad in 2006. I always seemed to be put off by IO in that it seemed like it was just additional fluff, something extra to do and not really necessary. Of course the IO proponents of the world are retching as they read my words. But I did usually believe that it should be our actions that were our information ops and not some elaborate system of conveying those actions to others since it did not seem to me at least on the local level to be necessary. Which i think Steve is in line with this specific point you make about IO and stratcoms.

gian

[Sean Osborne]

I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.

I agree 100%.

I also agree with what tequila labeled as the "Zeus' thunderbolt." Unless I'm mistaken "Zeus' thunderbolt" is exactly what CONPLAN 8022 is with respect to US policy - a global, preemptive military strike capability against an identified National Security threat.

As we all know we're not the only nation on earth that has a "Zeus' thunderbolt" doctrine with which to respond to NatSec 101 threats. Russia got a plan. So does Israel.

We may see one of these days how Israel's "Zeus' thunderbolt" doctrine applies to Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions.

[JJackson]

Catching up on this thread this evening I had picked out a couple of extracts I was going to comment on and see that Walrus has noticed the same bits, so I will refer you to his quote boxes rather than paste them in again.

I would have to disagree with Curmudgeon’s Spanish friend. You are not hard enough on yourselves, with great power comes great responsibility. And you have taken onto yourselves great military power; it is a conscious choice your representatives have made over a long period of time to build up a force for power projection. I will take some convincing that US force levels are only enough to protect the territorial integrity of the US of A. One carrier group would put paid to most continents’ – let alone country’s – navies. You have this power but do you use it with the Wisdom of Solomon? I think not. For each country vilified and threatened by the US there is usually an equally nasty counterpart that is brushed under the carpet due to ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ or some similarly flawed logic.

Again with the play pit. If I was playing in the sandpit with some other kids and one of the big boys kept pushing around the kids who were doing things he did not like I would
A] Take an immediate dislike to the bully.
B] Try and organise the others to kick the #### out of him.

In response to the extract from Tacitus:
My elected representatives have let me down badly by aligning the UK with US foreign policy. I am ashamed that my country invaded another country with no hard evidence, what it transpires they did have was far from enough to justify a war of aggression. The delay in calling the UN for a halt to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon was even worse. So I would certainly not wish to substitute us as the bully in the play pit. My preferred solution is not to have any one country have the ability to impose its will; if your case is not strong enough to persuade the others that one of your number needs disciplining then you do not have the authority to discipline them. I seem to recall we all signed up to something like wasn’t it called the UN?

Having dumped on the US for its more recent destabilizations of the system I reserve most of the blame for our inability to correct problems, and the number of problems that need correcting, for the colonial European powers. This is a longer argument, and not very relevant to this thread, but basically they created the fixed bordered Westphalian Nation State and imposed it on the rest of the world. The cartographer’s lines on the map - for the purpose of demarcation of administrative regions - have been inherited as national boundaries. Irredentist disputes abound as the enclosed populations try to redefine these lines to better reflect who they wish to be grouped with. This system is not well adapted to global problems like communicable diseases or environmental change.

As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour). While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel. As it is they have the land, wealth & might and the Palestinians are a little light on bargaining chips, beyond the 'we was wronged' argument. Unfortunately this requires a change in US policy to Israel which is not likely to happen so the 'we would be happy if you have a solution' is really 'we are happy if you have a solution that fits in with what we wanted to happen'.

[Sean Osborne]

As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour).

JJackson, I find your suggestion that world would not have a “a problem” with Islamists because Britain “sided with” Zionists at the expense of “indigenous Palestinians” to be an over simplification of historical fact and which might be based-upon a pro-“Palestinian” bias at the expense of the Jewish Diaspora which originated in the Holy Land.

What rights were stripped from the Israelite’s by imperial Rome, the European superpower of the first century AD, which a subsequent generation of Europeans sought to rectify through the good offices of Great Britain, France and Italy?

The British government, as a global superpower power in its own right, approved the classified statement of policy (The Balfour Declaration), which subsequently became a component of the Treaty of Sevres with Islamic Turkey (a successor Middle Eastern empire to that of the Romans and Byzantines). The Balfour Declaration included provisions agreed to by all parties which awarded territorial concessions to many indigenous peoples – not just “Palestinians.”

The core text reads:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The critically important statement in bold above includes at lot more than Arabs of the Islamic faith.

Maybe even more important was the 1915 exchange of letters between Henry McMahon and Hussein bin Ali in Mecca which defined an Arab state or states exclusive of the Mediterranean coast. The extent of the Mediterranean coastal exclusion was never clarified.

I would vigorously suggest that the “Islamist problem” arises explicitly from Islamic ideology, and therefore Islam is on the hook to solve this problem. Neither Balfour nor any other non-Islamic individual is the sole source of any “problem.”

The 1922 Churchill White Paper figures very prominently as a clarifier of the Balfour Declaration. It acknowledges both Arab and Jewish indigenous populations in Palestine; that Palestine as a whole should not be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine; that “during the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000;” and that “the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.”

Finally, the “indigenous Palestinians” you cite were not all Arabs. There were counted among them, as can be recovered from many sources, an ethnology of indigenous Palestinians that included Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.

While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel.

This has the proverbial "snowballs chance" of happening anytime soon. American support for Israel comes directly from America's Judeo-Christian heritage. This is the cornerstone of the American policy. Moreover, at this point in time America would no more withdraw unconditional support from Israel than Great Britain would withdraw unconditional support of its immigrants to Australia. Condi Rice is trying like hell, but she is being vehemently opposed at every turn by a fairly large majority of We The People.

[JJackson]

Sean:
Not real arguments here; I knew when I was writing it that it was a gross over simplification of the positions on all sides. Global Jewry were poorly treated globally for centuries by all, the holocaust was just one more injustice in a very long line. The British made mutually exclusive promises to various parties and, principally due to our rulers of that era having a Sunday School Christian background, seem to have been more inclined to side with the Isaac rather than the Ishmael branch of the Abrahamic religions. Having been British public school educated I remember all the compulsory church attendance and religious studies classes well.

As to the “Snowball in hell” bit that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The idea that the US is having to shoulder the burden as others wont step up, and would be happy to step back if they would, is just not true. Others might try and broker a peace but any solution that the majority of nations might view as equitable will not get out of committee as it is not what the US/Israel want.

[Tom Odom]

Sean:
Not real arguments here; I knew when I was writing it that it was a gross over simplification of the positions on all sides. Global Jewry were poorly treated globally for centuries by all, the holocaust was just one more injustice in a very long line. The British made mutually exclusive promises to various parties and, principally due to our rulers of that era having a Sunday School Christian background, seem to have been more inclined to side with the Isaac rather than the Ishmael branch of the Abrahamic religions. Having been British public school educated I remember all the compulsory church attendance and religious studies classes well.

As to the “Snowball in hell” bit that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The idea that the US is having to shoulder the burden as others wont step up, and would be happy to step back if they would, is just not true. Others might try and broker a peace but any solution that the majority of nations might view as equitable will not get out of committee as it is not what the US/Israel want.

Wearing a moderator hat, JJ that was a very measured response and I for one appreciate it. This thread is not about debating the Arab-Isareli question. There are threads on here where we have discussed those issues.

Sean try not climbing on the bully pulpit with phrases like "Snow ball in Hell" and "We the People". Your views are your views. Similiarly, do not assign or imply "pro" labels to others. What you label yourself is your business; what you label others on here is moderator business.

Thank you both for your time, Carry on with the purpose of the thread,

Tom

[TheCurmudgeon]

I would have to disagree with Curmudgeon’s Spanish friend. You are not hard enough on yourselves, with great power comes great responsibility. And you have taken onto yourselves great military power; it is a conscious choice your representatives have made over a long period of time to build up a force for power projection. I will take some convincing that US force levels are only enough to protect the territorial integrity of the US of A.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, or I was just inept at saying it.

First, I agree with the spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility". My point was that we are traditionally hesitant to employ that power. Oh we talk a good game, protector of the free world and all that, but we are not accustomed to being an "imperial power" like the Brits or the Spanish. We WERE the ingsergents. As a result, we often make mistakes either by acting at the wrong time or not acting at all. We were OK during the cold war when the enemy was clearly defined, but we are floundering now. We have this power, what do we do with it?

Second, I really am not a fan of militaries that are only capable of self defense. That leads to parity and parity played a big part in two world wars. If Britain had been an overwhelming power in 1912 or 1936 with the ability to invade Germany at its leisure, then I submit that Germany would have done things differently. Not a perfect example but I think you get my drift.

At this point how we ended up here, with the ability to project overwelming power worlwide is not important. Now that we have this power, what do we do with it? I am in favor of using it sparingly but using it none the less.

I am a realist. I would like to believe that we will always use our great power for the benefit of the globe. Since I don’t believe that, then you must come up with some parameters on when and how to use it.

[Schmedlap]

"Here's the gist: one of the foundation assumptions of current American strategy is that most people around the world like us hence we can and should work through local partners to win 'hearts and minds.'"

I think the assumption is not that people like us, but rather that there is a universal yearning for freedom. Sorry if that sounds like administration propaganda, but that seems to be the assumption.

"Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for."

I realize that your scope is larger than just Iraq, but for what this is worth, I would disagree that people in Iraq have a good understanding of us. Far from it. Iraqis can be very intelligent, very savvy, and have much better interpersonal skills than most Americans. However, when it comes to gathering information about the world outside of their immediate vicinity that they can see with their own eyes, they are horrible. They are so susceptible to conspiracy theories, wild exaggerations, unfounded fears, and just flat out confusion that it is ridiculous. This has been exacerbated by years of state-run propaganda used to prop up corrupt tyrants. More often than not, they cannot make sense of what is occuring in the adjacent province, let alone half a world away. I met Iraqis in 2005 who didn't realize that we re-invaded in 2003 and their first question of us was to ask if the Israelis had moved into Iraq.

[slapout9]

As far as the Lightning Bolt from the sky goes here is an interesting paper on how to do it perhaps with the effect that Steve Metz is talking about.


http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/saas_T...Fahrenkrug.pdf

[SteveMetz]

I think the assumption is not that people like us, but rather that there is a universal yearning for freedom. Sorry if that sounds like administration propaganda, but that seems to be the assumption.

That's the way the Bush administration phrased it, but I don't think that's really the assumption. The assumption is that everyone yearns for freedom AND believes that liberal democracy and market economies are the best way to attain it.

I think there are two flaws in the assumption:

1. It assumes that because Americans value INDIVIDUAL freedom above all else, everyone else does. In reality, for many cultures GROUP rights and justice/honor are more important than individual freedom.

2. It assumes that a yearning for freedom is enough to make a democracy function. In reality, the hard part isn't everyone wanting freedom for themselves. It's everyone being willing to tolerate the freedom of OTHER people. That doesn't exist in sufficient quantities in some cultures.

In my book, one of my main lines of criticism of the Bush strategy is that it ignored the role of culture and simply mirror imaged American preferences and desires on the rest of the world. I believe this was because the administration and its supporters mis-read the "lessons" of the Reagan administration. They believed that because once repressive regimes collapsed in Eastern Europe, democracies of one sort of the other blossomed, that would happen everywhere. They overlooked the fact that it tends to happen in certain cultures but not others.