Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 102

Thread: The Israeli Option in Strategy

  1. #1
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default The Israeli Option in Strategy

    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."

  2. #2
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by tequila; 12-13-2007 at 12:03 PM.

  5. #5
    Council Member Stu-6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    243

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Stu-6; 12-13-2007 at 12:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stu-6 View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default Not a fan

    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?
    Last edited by JJackson; 12-13-2007 at 01:01 PM.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Interesting premises

    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

  9. #9
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    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

    I think what I'm struggling with it deeper than that. Polling data is a snapshot at a moment in time. It can vascillate dramatically. The bigger issue is almost philosophical: Americans assume that conflict occurs because of the confluence of two things: 1) evil people; and 2) misperception (which evil people encourage and exploit). Thus the solution is to get rid of the evil people and ameliorate the misperceptions.

    I'm not just sure this is accurate. If conflict is structural, then it is likely to be persistent. I think the Bush strategy kind of attempted to get at this, but it grossly overestimated the ability of the United States to adjust the basic structure of the world.

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default JJackson, your post

    would would have been predictable from a close look at the data in the Kohut book but there are many in the UK who would take a different tack.

  11. #11
    Council Member Stu-6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    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?
    War is a constant of human society however this is not the same a perpetual war. Even wars that appear perpetual can, often with the hindsight of history, be seen more correctly as epochal (such as best articulated in of Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles). Therefore while just accepting war is perpetual may seem like a realist solution, it actuality represents a failure in grad strategy.

  12. #12
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    The "basic structure" of the world is, I would submit, malleable to change, but not to control. Policymakers by their very nature are inclined to forget this. The Iraq War, for instance, has irrevocably altered the social structure and culture of Iraq and the broader Middle East in ways that would never have occurred without it --- but certainly not in ways that the United States, Iran, Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda, or the Sunni tribes could really imagine or control.

    Perpetual war conjures an image of armies clashing and existential crisis - was the Cold War, by definition then, "perpetual warfare" as well? The world was certainly far bloodier and in far greater danger of destruction back then. We in the U.S. seem to have weathered it fairly well, being the ultimate victors if not necessarily in the usual Roman triumph sense of the word.

  13. #13
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    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?

    I think there is something to this . When I read that we are the world's only super power so we get to tell everybody what to do that is just a little bit provovative. I guess I missed the World Election that put is in charge.
    Last edited by slapout9; 12-13-2007 at 01:33 PM. Reason: fix stuff

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Point New York
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    ...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

  15. #15
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Steve,

    The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

    I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

    Bad theory and worse results.

    Tom

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    I think what I'm struggling with it deeper than that.
    I'm not just sure this is accurate. If conflict is structural, then it is likely to be persistent. I think the Bush strategy kind of attempted to get at this, but it grossly overestimated the ability of the United States to adjust the basic structure of the world.
    How about this? Conflict in the Middle East is structural. Bush wasn't trying to change the world, just the Middle East. We see ourselves as "the good guys" and we are in most of the world, but in the Middle East we are not "fair brokers." We are completely and unabashedly on one side of the conflict. The opposite side of the people with all the oil. (Like Gian says, our actions prove this and we can't convince the people with the oil that we're not with IO.)

    We need a different way of dealing with structural Middle Eastern conflict than let's say Somalia or Kosovo, which are discrete events.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  17. #17
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Steve,

    The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

    I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

    Bad theory and worse results.

    Tom
    I take your first point but on the second there still seems to be an underlying assumption that Israeli strategy has failed. Given the challenges and threats they face, I think you can make a case that it has made them remarkably secure at an acceptable price.

  18. #18
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    I take your first point but on the second there still seems to be an underlying assumption that Israeli strategy has failed. Given the challenges and threats they face, I think you can make a case that it has made them remarkably secure at an acceptable price.
    As long as they have someone--US--to back them up--a strategy of continued existence has succeeded. At heart, that is a colonial strategy and requires continuous backing.

    Defining who pays the price is an interesting question as well, one I will leave for now. But in trying to apply this to the US, whom do you see as our backers?

    Tom

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Steve,

    The problem I have with this theory is its primary underlying assumption: That the "Israeli" option works in stand alone fashion. That is not the case and has not been the case since the October 1973 War. Israeli strategy, military, and economics are very much tied to the assumption that the US will back up their use of a thunderbolt strategy.

    I see your strategy here as a twist on preemption theory, something else that has been borrowed in large degree from the Israelis.

    Bad theory and worse results.

    Tom
    Yet we are completely and unabashedly supportive of Israeli strategy. To me that's the issue. How do we minimize the costs of wedding ourselves to an unsuccessful strategy that produces perpetual conflict?. (Now that resolving the conflict by spreading democracy on the Arab side has proven to be an unrealistic pipe dream.)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  20. #20
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    Yet we are completely and unabashedly supportive of Israeli strategy. To me that's the issue. How do we minimize the costs of wedding ourselves to an unsuccessful strategy that produces perpetual conflict?. (Now that resolving the conflict by spreading democracy on the Arab side has proven to be an unrealistic pipe dream.)
    That has been an overarching question that this Adminstration ignored altogether for the past 7 yearrs, partially at least in the belief that one could transpose democracy elswhere in the region and solve this issue. That is not to say that all problems in the region are monocausal. They certainly are not. But as you question above, I do not buy a strategy built on the assumption that we are hated so we will convert that hate into fear.

    It is a negative image of the those who want everyone to love us. That does not work either because the world is much too complex.

    Tom

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •